Hiya. I've just had a missed call on my mobile from the following number: 0201 178 1500. I have no idea who it was and don't recognise the prefix. I've tried typing the number into google and it comes up with nothing found. I tried dialling the number from both a landline and my mobile and I get the recorded message "The number you have dialled has not been recognised, please check and try again" from both the landline and my mobile! Anyone got any idea what's going on!?  

Foxy wrote on Apr 17^th, 2008 at 3:21pm:


You don't recognise the London dialling code prefix - 020.

When 0171 and 0181 were initially abolished some years ago only 020 7 and 020 8 were allocated to the old 0171 and 0181 number ranges.  More recently Ofcom has released the 020 3 area code prefix due to a shortage of remaining London 020 7 and 020 8 prefixes.  So the only numbers you can call back generally begin 020 3, 020 7 and 020 8.  Good old Ofcom has done nothing to force everyone involved with telephone numbers to only ever use the display format 020 7123 1234 for London numbers where spacing is used and so we still see 0207 123 1234 and 0208 123 1234 by the undeducated masses who wrongly seem to believe that the area codes 0171 and 0181 were replaced with 0207 and 0208 area codes.  This is not the case.  Within the 020 area code you can dial any other number by dialling on the last 8 digits regardless of what number the first of the 8 digits is.

There is no good reason why any prefix in the range 020 1 through to 020 9 should not actually be used as 020 would generally be recognised by most people (yourself excepted clearly) as a London dialling code.  As you have found here Ofcom is apparently allowing 020 1 and possibly also 020 0, 020 2, 020 4, 020 5, 0206 and 020 9 to also be issued as numbers only used for internal routing or outgoing calls but they cannot receive incoming calls, except possibly if you make the call with the same telco as the one to which the number is issued.

As jgxenite says it is possible to have a number used for outgoing calls that does not take incoming calls.  This number is such a number.  It would probably be simpler and lead to lot less questions if this company just went for the usual unhelpful Unavailable or alternatively (much better in my view) used a CLI number for the company that could be called back (or at least gave a message explaining who had called and why they didn't take return calls on the number), even though it wasn't the number that made the call.

We have the incompetence, ineffectiveness and lack of strong leadership of the so called telecoms regulator OfCoN to thank for this kind of thing.  To my mind Unavailable should not be an allowed category of CLI for uk originated calls and should only exist for overseas calls where the foreign network genuinely did not provide a CLI.  All Unavailable numbers originating in the UK are in reality Wittheld numbers but wittheld by the company's telecoms director rather than the person who made the call.

andy9 wrote on Apr 18^th, 2008 at 5:55pm:


It was previously found with student numbers only intended to be used as end routing points for 0870 numbers and not supposed to be open to inward dialling that they could still be reached from other phone numbers on the NTL cable network.

Quote:


I have only seen Ofcom announce the release of the 020 3 number range for use as normal numbers for incoming calls.   Where was the release of 020 0 and 020 1 ranges announced by Ofcom?

Quote:

Well Ofcom haven't even publicly announced 020 0 or 020 1 are in use for incoming calls unless you know different.  Where has the use of these number blocks been explained to the world at large by Ofcom?

I shudder to think what may happen if the NTS industry finds a generalised way to terminate numbers currently terminated on reachable 01/02 numbers on 01/02 numbers or direct voip end points that cannot be reached for incoming calls.

NGMsGhost wrote on Apr 18^th, 2008 at 7:23pm:


Even though you ask the question twice, I have no idea whether or why Ofcom might have failed to notify you personally of the release to service of certain number series.

I had such a number in 020 000~ in June 2005. I have a vague recollection I've mentioned this here before. It accepted incoming calls and the provider I was using (who presumably rented it) forwarded them to a destination I defined

There is also the 02002220700 access which can be useful to reach freephone numbers, which has been extensively posted on internet forums for quite a bit longer than that, like roughly 3 years to my knowledge [a couple of brief searches elsewhere find Aug 2005, and I know those weren't the first I'd heard. Jan 2006 on this forum]

Why are you inventing the idea that these number series might be unreachable? Or persistently hinting that there might thus be some undeclared Ofcom policy to blame?  

andy9 wrote on Apr 19^th, 2008 at 4:41pm:

Ofcom put out a big press release to the world at large about starting to issue 020 3 numbers.  They did no such thing for 020 0 or 020 1.  They may list in them their allocated number blocks but they are only read by telephony professionals?  Ofcom's press release specifically gives the impression that only 020 3, 020 7 and 020 8 will be in use as regular London numbers.

See www.ofcom.org.uk/media/news/2004/11/nr20041115

This digitalspy post confirms 020 0 and 020 1 numbers cannot be dialled without omitting the 020 area code and are only intended as end termination points for 0870 and similar numbers.  Surely if the numbers cannot be dialled within London without the 020 code and are intended as end destination points for 084/7 numbers or 9 numbers a further likely corollary is that many of them will also be blocked in to incoming calls.  Even if it is not compulsory for that to be the case.

See http://www.digitalspy.co.uk/forums/showpost.php?p=7890196&postcount=46

                                                                                                                                                                                                                         

Has Ofcom ever explained why it allows "national dialling only" London area code 020 0 and 020 1 numbers to exist in the first place?

NGMsGhost wrote on Apr 19^th, 2008 at 4:56pm:


One post on another forum two years ago is not factual proof, but note that the same person does in fact mention 020 1~ and that 020 0~ also exist

There is no mystery or conspiracy about so-called national dialling only, or the fact that such numbers can't be dialled in London without 020. It's just a matter of defined dialplans

If you're in London, then of course it would not be sensible to dial these below as 8 figure numbers. Some would appear to be unfinished numbers for other destinations than London, some are just invalid

0001 8xxx
0003 xxxx
0010 xxxx
0014 xxxx
0100 xxxx
0222 0700
0300 xxxx
0333 xxxx
0500 xxxx
1181 xxxx

But with 020 in front of any of these, they are all potentially valid numbers from existing allocations, including BT (the last one)


I don't understand your points of dispute.

You're saying that Ofcom made no announcement or explanation, or at least implying you can't find one. Was that necessary?

You say they are only used to be forwarded to by other services; I and others say some examples have been in quite ordinary use for 3 years or so.

On the contrary, it appears to be you that is complaining

I successfully called my 020 0001 8xxx number in June 2005 from O2 and Orange mobiles, and from a couple of other providers. This means that they had actively defined the number series as valid in their dialplans

I've used and recommended the 02002220700 number on many occasions, as have many others, for about 3 years now, from at least half a dozen providers. T-mobile still block it, but I'm not aware of any other company doing so.

If you are that keen to be right than you gainsay all of this, and now spend a while searching and eventually come up with an potentially incorrect or irrelevant interpretation of half a sentence, then good luck ...


Phone numbers don't work at random or by chance. Companies or users define them as valid in a dialplan, or mask off those that are not, sometimes leaving a couple of glitches, like for example a temporary inability to call the newer German numbers a digit longer than previously allocated, or new UK mobile number series being unreachable from a couple of providers for a while

Dialplans can allow alternatives to be valid, such as the including leading +44 or 0044 on UK numbers, or dialling someone on the same exchange without the area code, just a 5 6 7 or 8 figure number. Even the Betamax VoIP brands allow this latter option, if you define your local (or any, even mobile) area code, which will be invisibly inserted

As I've pointed out, and so does the document you found, numbers with 0 or 1 as the first of those digits can only be used with the area code as well. But they do indeed exist, and not only in London, e.g 0186519xxxx in Oxford. Also the renumbering of some exchanges allowed possibilities such as 0117900 in Bristol or 0118300 in Reading, which could not have existed before.

Dave wrote on Apr 20^th, 2008 at 3:45am:


Surely they are now promoted for dialling by the public though.    By the Saynoto0870.com website.