The data itself is mostly fine; the problems are mostly with the presentation of that data:

1. Including part of the local number as if it were a part of the code (making the code look 'longer'), when there is no need to do so, like 020

8

instead of 020.

2. Running the code and the local number together as one, instead of proper separation, like 028

94

instead of  028  94xx. In this case, it is necessary to show part of the 'local number' for clarity.  This is one of those areas of the country where these splits do need to be shown because, in this case, the 028 area code actually covers more than one charge group. In these cases there should be a gap shown between the code and the initial digits that are a part of the local number.

3. Showing multiple 'long codes' as destinations when only one short code is needed...
Quote:
The 30 listed entries shown here for London, and noted above, are all able to be replaced by the single entry 020 in this case. There are some areas of the country where these splits do need to be shown because there are some areas where one area code actually covers more than one charge group. However in those cases there should be a gap between the code and the initial digits that are a part of the local number.

4. Unnecessary splits shown for the caller's own area code, like breaking London into 020

3

, 020

7

, and 020

8

, as the caller's own location. London only has one code, 020, for the whole of London and that code covers only one charge group. There are some areas of the country where these splits do need to be shown because there are some areas where one area code actually covers more than one charge group. However in those cases there should be a gap between the code and the initial digits that are a part of the local number.

5. Repetition of codes, over and over, like for London where the same list of numbers was repeated ten times within each list of destinations; that is, repeated ten times for each of 0203(sic), 0207(sic), and 0208(sic), due to poor programming.


Clarity of presentation is everything. Without that, people will not properly understand the offer.

catj wrote on Jun 8^th, 2009 at 12:50am:

Can we qualify the "mostly"? What are the material errors?

Presentation of telephone numbers is indeed important. It is a consideration that appears to have been totally disregarded in this context, which addresses only the issue of billing. Like it or not however, the two are not readily addressable in the same simple terms, which denies the opportunity for there to be an easy and precise comprehension of the offer.

The term "area code" is perhaps wrongly used and there is unnecessary detail. I cannot however see how this makes the checker unusable for its purpose of determining whether or not a particular call is "local".