http://stakeholders.ofcom.org.uk/consultations/geographic-numbers/

Ofcom has just published a consultation on use of geographic numbers. I've had a very quick look at it and I see that one thing being proposed is that in certain areas local dialling be discontinued. That is, telephone users in one particular area code will have to dial the local number always prefixed with the STD code. This will allow use of local numbers beginning 0 and 1 (which would immediately follow the code).

This requires more reading, but I think that this is definately closing the stable door after the horse has bolted. The reason some areas are running low on numbers is not because there are lots of numbers in use, but because lots of numbers are allocated to telcos when they only need a few. It's not rocket science.  ::)

An article from the Daily Wail ( ;D) on this subject

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1333264/Shortage-phone-numbers-means-youll-dial-area-code-just-ring-door.html

Typical "Newspaper" reporting,

they cannot even get a dialing code correct - "The measures are aimed at halting the problems experienced in London when the new 0203 dialling code was introduced alongside the existing 0207 and 0208 prefixes six years ago" - Since when does London have an 0208/7/3 dialing code? It does NOT, it's code is 020!

:o

CJT-80 wrote on Nov 26^th, 2010 at 9:55pm:

Typical "Newspaper" reporting,

I disagree. They obviously got the detail wrong - that is inevitable.

They did however get the essence of the story right - this is less common.

Misrepresenting the situation in London in the way that was done, does actually get the point across more clearly than explaining that shortening the "area code" and lengthening the "exchange code" made it easier to offer more numbers by opening up the possibility of "exchange codes" beginning 2,3,4,5 and 6. Under the new idea the options for 0, 1 and 9 will be added. It would indeed be more correct to refer to 020 7xxx, 020 8xxx, and 020 3xxx. The difficulty is in explaining to people that they were over-simplifying the situation in thinking that 0171 and 0181 were replaced by 0207 and 0208 respectively and that 0203 has now been added.

"National number" dialling is already becoming the norm, with in-built directories in phones, fed by CLI, and use of mobiles. Ofcom may encourage it as a standard, if abbreviated dialling options are withdrawn in certain cases. This leave those of us who press for proper presentation of London numbers becoming total pedants. Many of those I press on the subject take my point, but say that they always dial the full number anyway, as they have to on their mobile and if calling from another area. If the full number has to be dialled, punctuation is simply a matter of how it is easiest to transfer the information from the page to the dialling keys.

Mobile users will know that loading phonebooks from CLI typically stores numbers in "international", let alone "national" format. I cannot foresee the day when we will have to go that far in normal dialling.

Interestingly, if you dial any UK telephone number on an Apple iPhone, you'll see that the software puts spaces in all the right places, for all number lengths, and for all number formats.

No-one with an iPhone should be under any illusion that the area code for London numbers is anything other than 020.

SilentCallsVictim wrote on Nov 26^th, 2010 at 10:24pm:

CJT-80 wrote on Nov 26th, 2010 at 9:55pm: Typical "Newspaper" reporting, I disagree. They obviously got the detail wrong - that is inevitable. They did however get the essence of the story right - this is less common.

The essence of the story is not that unused telephone numbers are running out because more and more are required by subscribers, but that the way in which numbers are allocated to communications providers which leads to lots of wastage.

The fact that this is now apparently being looked at, purely as a result of dwindling stocks of unallocated numbers, seems to be the way, where things are only looked at when they are seen to be an issue, rather than designing them correctly in the first place.

I suspect that our number guru catj will be able to shed much light on this.

---

National dialling only creates a lot of (or should I say, even more) wastage, whereby numbers only ever begin with 0, 1 and 999.

If national dialling only be implented with certain STD codes only, then how are we to know which it does apply to? In such circumstances, it would therefore be innappropriate to use parentheses around the code. So there will be some situations where they are appropriate to be used in geographic numbers and others where they are not. However, as we have discussed elsewhere, they often get used incorrectly, thereby diminishing their usefulness at imparting the message. Incorrect applications (such as around prefixes 0845, 0208, 02476) also suggests that authors don't understand their purpose anyway.

Yes, the issue is that anything up to 300 different providers can each reserve a block of 1000 numbers in every area code.  Subscriber numbers are actually falling nationally.

The system used to be set to issue numbers in blocks of 10 000.  However once several dozen providers had reserved 10 000 numbers each, there weren't many DE blocks free in some areas.  The system was then changed, only a few years ago, to issue just 1 000 numbers per provider per area code.

In reality, some providers have no interest in geographic numbers, having allocations only in NGN number space.

Even so, the problem has now re-occurred.  There are now hundreds of providers and the limit has almost been reached again.

Ofcom want to open up numbers such as (01456) 0xxxxx and (01456) 1xxxxx, but this short-term measure simply opens 200 new blocks per area code, all of which will be swallowed up within a couple of years - not by subscribers, but by multiple new companies reserving them for future use.

The country isn't really "running out" of numbers.  What's happened is that Ofcom's crazy system of allocating numbers "by provider" has wasted vast amounts of number stock and it is now catching up with them.


Take a look at the "By Provider" list at  http://www.telecom-tariffs.co.uk/codelook.htm  to see just how many number blocks each provider has already reserved.  Be aware that some providers have hundreds of area codes where they have zero customers, and yet have 1000 numbers set aside in every area code "just in case".

Quote:

0208, 02476

Slapped wrists for that!

It's (020) 8  and (024) 76.




There's a number of related articles:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1333264/Shortage-phone-numbers-means-youll-dial-area-code-just-ring-door.html

http://www.theargus.co.uk/news/8690014.Brighton_and_Hove_could_get_new_phone_numbers/

http://www.thetelegraphandargus.co.uk/news/local/localbrad/8709929.Change_to_phone_code_on_the_way/

http://www.thisisbusiness-eastmidlands.co.uk/news/need-use-01332-dialling-code-numbers-city/article-2941958-detail/article.html

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/11/25/ofcom_local_numbers/



Read this for loads of mis-reporting...

http://www.prlog.org/11109047-london-phone-numbers-are-running-out-again.html

To be very clear,
- London is NOT one of the affected areas.
- The London area codes are NOT 0203, 0207 and 0208.
- The previous London change did not add 10 million numbers. It allowed for 80 million numbers in London instead of the previous 16 million limit.

All that from a so-called "telecoms company".  What planet are THEY on?

catj wrote on Nov 30^th, 2010 at 9:18pm:

The country isn't really "running out" of numbers.  What's happened is that Ofcom's crazy system of allocating numbers "by provider" has wasted vast amounts of number stock and it is now catching up with them.

That's what I thought. It's not really rocket science and all of this was therefore predictable.

The whole sordid affair has come about as a result of the obsession that telecommunications must be privatised with competing providers at all costs. Had telecommunications not been opened up to multiple providers, this would not have happened.

What should have happened is that a suitable solution to the problem be drawn up prior to opening up of the industry.

These days, remediation is only carried out as a consequence of negative outcomes as a result of the bad design. With the railways, it took loss of life for systems to be changed.



catj wrote on Nov 30^th, 2010 at 9:34pm:

Quote: 0208, 02476 Slapped wrists for that! It's (020) 8  and (024) 76.

Either you have taken my comment out of context, or you have forgotten that 0845 has no longer been a STD code for over 15 years. Any slapped wrists are for the many people who write numbers incorrectly, and that includes putting 0845 in brackets.

---

At the end of the day, there is no need to have national dialling only in any area because (to the best of my knowledge) there are plenty of numbers that are not allocated to subscribers within all STD codes.

If this ridiculous way of handing out numbers is to be the way, then why don't we increase number length to say 20 digits and have done with it? That way there will be loads and loads of numbers for communications providers to sit on.


National dialling only within particular STD code(s) is just a total bodge. How are we supposed to know which areas where the code must always be dialled? There is no logic!

Dave wrote on Nov 30^th, 2010 at 11:53pm:

National dialling only within particular STD code(s) is just a total bodge. How are we supposed to know which areas where the code must always be dialled? There is no logic!

We sometimes look to north America to see a consistent and sensible numbering scheme. It's not as good as it seems. I was in Vancouver a few years ago and we had to dial the area code even for local calls. Can't remember if we had to dial "1" before it as well. Never found out why we had to dial the area code but the only reason I can thnk of is that some numbers began with 0 or 1.

You had to dial the area code, because that district has multiple area codes covering the same streets.

It would be like 0121 covering the whole of Birmingham, UK, and because all the numbers had been used, the area code 0421 introduced to also cover the whole of Birmingham.  For a local call, you would not be allowed to dial just 222 3344 any more. You would have to dial 0121 222 3344 or 0421 222 3344 in full, even from another line with the same area code as the number you were calling.

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

Depending on where you live in the US, local calls may be 7 or 10 digits or may need 1+10 digits.

Long distance calls need 10 or 1+10 digits.

It is very complicated, as in some areas the dial plan may be permissive, and in others mandatory.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_American_Numbering_Plan#Dialing_plans

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

catj wrote on Dec 1^st, 2010 at 8:14am:

Depending on where you live in the US, local calls may be 7 or 10 digits or may need 1+10 digits. Long distance calls need 10 or 1+10 digits. It is very complicated, as in some areas the dial plan may be permissive, and in others mandatory.

We have discussed numbering in US and Canada at length previously. I wouldn't describe as "complicated" whether local dialling is possible or not in particular areas. Rather, it is an illogical hotch potch.

The point of local dialling allows the use of shorter numbers for some destinations. National dialling only inhibits any short numbers being dialled.

Something which is complicated is logical. Our numbering is, broadly speaking, just that. There are a few exceptions with STD codes 01xxxx such as 015394, but in the main it's possible to work out what the local part of the number is, and thus dial it omitting the code (when calling from a line with the same code).

I was going to mention that numbers in the following areas are not correctly formatted in the search results at:  http://www.saynoto0870.com/search.php  including Hawkshead, Ambleside, Coniston, Grasmere, Windermere, Wigton, Keswick, Eskdale, and others:  i.e. 013873 - 015242 - 015394 - 015395 - 015396 - 016973 - 016974 - 016977 - 017683 - 017684 - 017687 - 019467. Is that easy to fix?

catj wrote on Dec 1^st, 2010 at 8:14am:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overlay_plan Depending on where you live in the US, local calls may be 7 or 10 digits or may need 1+10 digits. Long distance calls need 10 or 1+10 digits. It is very complicated, as in some areas the dial plan may be permissive, and in others mandatory. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_American_Numbering_Plan#Dialing_plans http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_area_code_overlays

It's not that complicated for those of us who live here :) I would also argue that, even for visitors, as long as reference is made to the local phone book, the system here is actually quite straightforward. The phone book will describe what one needs to dial, and whether the call will be free, as is common for residential subscribers. People here seem to adapt to overlays and splits very easily.

I would contrast this with the situation that I see when I visit the UK. The common use of, for example, 01142 and 0207, must be confusing for those unfamiliar with the UK system.

There are around 350 NPA ('area codes') in use in the US, Canada and twenty-odd other countries and territories. These cover landlines, cellular, toll-free and other non-geographic services. Each subscriber number is in a standardized format - NPA-NXX-XXXX. The UK has at least 600 variable length area codes for landlines alone! While the numbering scheme here has some drawbacks, and is far from perfect, I would argue that is is a significant improvement over the Ofcom-administered bodge.

allegro wrote on Dec 1^st, 2010 at 8:00am:

We sometimes look to north America to see a consistent and sensible numbering scheme. It's not as good as it seems. I was in Vancouver a few years ago and we had to dial the area code even for local calls. Can't remember if we had to dial "1" before it as well. Never found out why we had to dial the area code but the only reason I can thnk of is that some numbers began with 0 or 1.

Ten digit dialing is mandatory in Vancouver, as it is in many metro areas on this continent. The NANP does not allow telephone numbers (the NXX part) to begin with 0 or 1.

While the UK system has multiple formats, they are mostly in a small number of easily recognisable "2+8", "3+7" and "4+6" patterns:

(02x)  xxxx xxxx
(011x)  xxx xxxx
(01x1)  xxx xxxx
(01xxx)   xxxxxx


One complication is the small number of rural areas still on the very old "5+5" system:

(013873)  xxxxx
(015242)  xxxxx
(015394)  xxxxx
(015395)  xxxxx
(015396)  xxxxx
(016973)  xxxxx
(016974)  xxxxx
(016977)  xxxxx
(017683)  xxxxx
(017684)  xxxxx
(017687)  xxxxx
(019467)  xxxxx


There's also a few places with one digit less, using "4+5" or "5+4" format:

(01xxx)   xxxxx
(016977)  2xxx
(016977)  3xxx


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

http://www.aa-asterisk.org.uk/index.php/01_numbers#Number_format_for_all_01_and_02_area_codes



Ofcom did have the opportunity in 1995 - 2000 to rationalise the whole lot to:

(01xxx)   xxxxxx    and    (01xxx)   xxxxx

(02xx)  xxx xxxx   (e.g.  Leeds, Birmingham, Reading, Glasgow, etc)

(03x) xxxx  xxxx   (e.g.  London, Northern Ireland)

but blew it.

Such a system would likely have been workable for at least another century, with "01" (4+6/4+5) areas running out of capacity moving to an "02"  (3+7) code, and "02" (3+7) areas running out of capacity moving to an "03" (2+8) code.

I live in Norwich which is due to change from having to dial six digits to get a local number to eleven.  When I mention this to other people, the overwhelming reaction is one of dismay and outrage.  Why not just change the area code and prepend a digit to the front of the local number so that we can have seven digit local dialling ?  That would give us ten times as many numbers.  Calls made using the old code could still work by simply translating the number to the new one.  

The 01 and 02 ranges have, by my calculation, room for about 15 billion numbers, avoiding those starting 0, 1 or 99.

gadfly wrote on Dec 10^th, 2010 at 8:40pm:

I live in Norwich which is due to change from having to dial six digits to get a local number to eleven.  When I mention this to other people, the overwhelming reaction is one of dismay and outrage.  Why not just change the area code and prepend a digit to the front of the local number so that we can have seven digit local dialling ?  That would give us ten times as many numbers.  Calls made using the old code could still work by simply translating the number to the new one.   The 01 and 02 ranges have, by my calculation, room for about 15 billion numbers, avoiding those starting 0, 1 or 99.

Totally agree. It is incompetancy by the regulator because of the blase way in which it has handed out 10k (and 1k) blocks of numbers to providers who only ever use a few.

A few years ago, there was talk of having wide area codes, such as is the case in Northern Ireland where all 01 numbers were absorbed into the 028 code. The 029 code, for Cardiff only, was due to have been the code for all of Wales.

Whilst we would all have had to change numbers, and have longer numbers, it would have at least meant the retention of local dialling (albeit with a much wider area).

According to the OFCOM consultation document, about seventy 01xxx areas will run out by 2020.  These could be given 0xxx codes from the unused 02x ranges and the unused blocks in 023, 024 and 029.  There are also some ranges available in 01.  That's without touching any of the other ranges which OFCOM has reserved.

So there's no need to introduce eleven digit local dialling at all.

Having said in 1995 and 2000 that no-one's number need ever change again, Oftel/Ofcom are now hell-bent on doing any sort of bodge that will avoid any more number changes for existing customers.

This includes opening up local numbers beginning 0 and 1, forcing the area code to be dialled even for local calls, and having multiple area codes covering the same area.

The obvious solutions were presented years ago, and could have lasted the rest of the century. They chose to ignore those solutions.

The 02xx range should have been set aside for up to 100 areas to have 3+7 format numbering when 01xxx areas ran out of 6 digit local numbers.


Ofcom's handling of all this has been abysmal. They haven't a clue. Take a look at their area code list. There's loads of places they couldn't even be bothered to check for the correct spelling!

How do we get OFCOM sacked ?

catj wrote on Dec 10^th, 2010 at 9:21pm:

Having said in 1995 and 2000 that no-one's number need ever change again, Oftel/Ofcom are now hell-bent on doing any sort of bodge that will avoid any more number changes for existing customers.

It is the modern way of thinking. Think only of today and not of tomorrow. Is Ofcom staffed by bankers by any chance?  ::)

... either that, or something that rhymes with it.

Ofcom has presented its proposals for consultation. I may be naive, but I cannot see how a well thought through, comprehensive and well argued alternative proposal could be totally ignored. If it genuinely offers benefits to stakeholders then support for the proposal should be presented by many and various respondents to the consultation. Comments from industry representatives in their responses, on the feasibility and benefits of the proposal would obviously be helpful.

This forum may be a fine place in which to rehearse arguments, but they have to be presented properly and secure support from influential figures to have any hope of making a change.

I personally use the shortest possible dialling on my landline, because, unlike my mobile, it is not linked into my PIM and I tend not to store numbers in my phone memory from CLI. I am however not sure how the balance between changing to longer numbers for the convenience of shorter dialling, as against national dialling as a standard practice, would fall for the population as a whole. It would be interesting to know how many times local numbers are dialled by hand, rather than being dialled from a memory, or from a mobile. This is the data that would establish whether or not a number change was more beneficial than removal of local dialling.

As an "oldie" I recognise the benefits of local dialling. I also recognise that we no longer use mechanical pulse dials, where every digit involved some modest physical pain, so any excess would be avoided. Furthermore, a high proportion of (even local) calls are "dialled" from phone memories, which are commonly loaded from CLI. More significantly, I am going to propose the potentially highly contentious argument that there are relatively few communities in the UK which exist solely within a single dialling code area - most people (and nearly all businesses) would always quote their full national dialling number. I see no purpose in doing away with local dialling just for the hell of it, however I do not believe that it is worth paying as high a price to retain it as may once have been the case. The value of local dialling will never drop to zero, especially in the most populous areas, however it is diminishing.

---

gadfly wrote on Dec 10^th, 2010 at 9:23pm:

How do we get OFCOM sacked ?

Ofcom is accountable to parliament, generally through the BIS and DCMS (Select) Commons Committees. It is likely that, in future, these Committees, as well as the respective departments, will have a role in approving senior appointments to Ofcom. I am sure that if these Committees proposed the removal of a senior officer in reports, then the position of that officer would be untenable. In theory, this could apply to the entire board. A new board may be minded to replace some or all personnel at the various levels within the body. (This addresses the point, if it is related to personnel.)

If the point relates to removing some of Ofcom's functions, the Cabinet Office has a team working on reassignment of the functions of Quangos. It may be difficult to think of who other than the statutory Communications Regulator could be given the job of controlling the National Numbering Plan, as this would appear to be an essential element of the responsibilities of such a body. I am sure that serious proposals for the reassignment of roles would be considered.

If the suggestion is to re-write the 2003 Communications Act, so as to do away with Ofcom altogether, this is probably more tricky. The current programme for government does not propose any such measure. It is indeed proposed to grant further regulatory powers to Ofcom within the first half of 2011. My suggestion would be to lobby for such a proposal to be included in the manifesto of every party likely to be in government following the 2015 General Election. As a national telephone system, with a plurality of providers, requires some form of regulation, then such a proposal (unless severely radical so as to require no regulator) would have to include an alternative plan for how the regulatory body would be constituted.


As an alternative to sacking Ofcom, there is the possibility of getting those to whom it is accountable to compel it to changes its ways. Ed Richards will be appearing before the Public Accounts (Select) Commons Committee on Tuesday to answer the charges levied in the NAO report - Ofcom: The effectiveness of converged regulation. Evidence submitted by a campaigner in relation to Ofcom's failure to address the issue of Silent Calls has been acknowledged by the Committee as being helpful. This includes a suggestion that the relevant powers be sub-contracted by Ofcom for administration by another body better able to handle the work. It may be interesting to see how the members of the committee challenge Mr Richards on this issue, how he responds and the conclusions reached by the Committee.

It may be a little late now, but I am sure that the Committee would be grateful for any further useful briefings that may be offered.

I have responded to OFCOM's proposal as a private individual and I urge others to do the same.

There is discussion all over the web about this consultation, but only nine responses are shown on Ofcom's website. The published responses therefore cover only a very small proportion of views.

I understand that Ofcom will be having public meetings in many of the affected areas over the next few weeks, though there doesn't appear to be a full published list anywhere.

Langholm      - February 21
Brighton        - March 1st
Bournemouth - March 2nd

Quote:

only nine responses are shown on Ofcom's website

A few more have appeared in recent hours; I don't know if that is all of them now or not.