Welcome, Guest. Please Login or Register
SAYNOTO0870.COM

<---- Back to main website

 
Home Help Search Login Register

Pages: 1 2 3 
Send Topic Print
Ofcom consultation: Geographic number conservation (Read 27,965 times)
jrawle
Supreme Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 708
Didcot, Oxfordshire
Gender: male
Re: Ofcom consultation: Geographic number conserva
Reply #15 - Dec 5th, 2009 at 8:56pm
 
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?
Back to top
 
WWW  
IP Logged
 
catj
Senior Member
****
Offline



Posts: 366
Re: Ofcom consultation: Geographic number conserva
Reply #16 - Dec 5th, 2009 at 9:06pm
 
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
Back to top
« Last Edit: Dec 5th, 2009 at 9:10pm by catj »  
 
IP Logged
 
Dave
Global Moderator
*****
Offline



Posts: 9,902
Yorkshire
Gender: male
Re: Ofcom consultation: Geographic number conserva
Reply #17 - Dec 5th, 2009 at 9:28pm
 
catj wrote on Dec 5th, 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.  Sad


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. Roll Eyes


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 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.
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
jrawle
Supreme Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 708
Didcot, Oxfordshire
Gender: male
Re: Ofcom consultation: Geographic number conserva
Reply #18 - Dec 6th, 2009 at 1:50pm
 
Dave wrote on Dec 5th, 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. Roll Eyes

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 5th, 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.
Back to top
 
WWW  
IP Logged
 
Dave
Global Moderator
*****
Offline



Posts: 9,902
Yorkshire
Gender: male
Re: Ofcom consultation: Geographic number conserva
Reply #19 - Dec 6th, 2009 at 2:27pm
 
jrawle wrote on Dec 6th, 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?  Huh  Huh Huh
Back to top
« Last Edit: Dec 6th, 2009 at 2:28pm by Dave »  
 
IP Logged
 
jrawle
Supreme Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 708
Didcot, Oxfordshire
Gender: male
Re: Ofcom consultation: Geographic number conserva
Reply #20 - Dec 6th, 2009 at 2:48pm
 
Dave wrote on Dec 6th, 2009 at 2:27pm:
What are all of these numbers going to be used for?  Huh  Huh Huh

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.
Back to top
 
WWW  
IP Logged
 
catj
Senior Member
****
Offline



Posts: 366
Re: Ofcom consultation: Geographic number conserva
Reply #21 - Dec 6th, 2009 at 6:06pm
 
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.
Back to top
« Last Edit: Dec 6th, 2009 at 6:06pm by catj »  
 
IP Logged
 
jrawle
Supreme Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 708
Didcot, Oxfordshire
Gender: male
Re: Ofcom consultation: Geographic number conserva
Reply #22 - Dec 6th, 2009 at 7:00pm
 
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.
Back to top
 
WWW  
IP Logged
 
catj
Senior Member
****
Offline



Posts: 366
Re: Ofcom consultation: Geographic number conserva
Reply #23 - Dec 6th, 2009 at 11:20pm
 
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.
Back to top
« Last Edit: Dec 7th, 2009 at 10:23am by catj »  
 
IP Logged
 
idb
Supreme Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 1,499
Miami, Florida, United States
Gender: male
Re: Ofcom consultation: Geographic number conserva
Reply #24 - 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. 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.
Back to top
 

As from November 21, 2013, I no longer participate in the forum and am unable to receive private messages.
 
IP Logged
 
catj
Senior Member
****
Offline



Posts: 366
Re: Ofcom consultation: Geographic number conserva
Reply #25 - Dec 7th, 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.


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.
Back to top
« Last Edit: Dec 7th, 2009 at 10:53am by catj »  
 
IP Logged
 
SilentCallsVictim
Supreme Member
*****
Offline


aka NHS.Patient, DH_fairtelecoms

Posts: 2,494
Re: Ofcom consultation: Geographic number conserva
Reply #26 - Dec 7th, 2009 at 10:52am
 
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.


Back to top
« Last Edit: Dec 7th, 2009 at 11:42am by SilentCallsVictim »  
WWW  
IP Logged
 
catj
Senior Member
****
Offline



Posts: 366
Re: Ofcom consultation: Geographic number conserva
Reply #27 - Dec 7th, 2009 at 11:00am
 
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.
Back to top
« Last Edit: Dec 7th, 2009 at 11:15am by catj »  
 
IP Logged
 
irrelevant
Senior Member
****
Offline



Posts: 409
Re: Ofcom consultation: Geographic number conserva
Reply #28 - Dec 7th, 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.  

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.




Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
jrawle
Supreme Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 708
Didcot, Oxfordshire
Gender: male
Re: Ofcom consultation: Geographic number conserva
Reply #29 - Dec 7th, 2009 at 10:09pm
 
SilentCallsVictim wrote on Dec 7th, 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 6th, 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.
Back to top
 
WWW  
IP Logged
 
Pages: 1 2 3 
Send Topic Print
(Moderators: Dave, Forum Admin, bbb_uk, CJT-80, DaveM)

Website and Content © 1999-2024 SAYNOTO0870.COM. All Rights Reserved.
Written permission is required to duplicate any of the content within this site.

WARNING: This is an open forum, posts are NOT endorsed by SAYNOTO0870.COM,
please exercise due caution when acting on any info from here.


SAYNOTO0870.COM » Powered by YaBB 2.5.2!
YaBB Forum Software © 2000-2024. All Rights Reserved.


Valid RSS Valid XHTML Valid CSS Powered by Perl Source Forge