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_...



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.

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

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).

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!

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

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

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:

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.

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