loddon wrote on Jan 4
th, 2014 at 12:16pm:
Now even you are getting confused, thereby illustrating my point poetically.
When you referred to "
advertising of 118 numbers continually omitting the zero", I assumed that you were referring to numbers from which a zero had been omitted. I wondering at first, but recognised that there is no (leading) zero to omit from a DQ number and noted that you clearly stated "omitting the zero", and so surely must have been referring to a number from which a zero may be omitted.
I would therefore rather use the word "misled", than "confused", to describe what happened to me, which probably illustrates a quite different point.
(I see that other contributors have had to intervene to point out that many comments are being made here without a
necessary awareness of the true history. We do not all have the time to research issues properly and I believe that one should take care not to offer pointed comment based on falsehoods, albeit mistaken assumptions, nor lead others into doing so.)
I can see how "heavy and extensive advertising" of any telephone number, or part thereof, may subliminally cause anyone to repeat those digits when dialling
any telephone number. I cannot however see how this could create the rational idea that the leading zero may be omitted from a geographic 0118 number when presenting or dialling it. DQ access codes are not the same as Reading telephone numbers; this difference must surely be highlighted, rather than undermined, on noting the similarity of the leading digits.
If there is evidence from psychological studies to contradict these common sense observations, then it needs to be presented. More importantly however, one needs evidence of the extent of mis-dialling, and perhaps the refusal of requests for refunds, to establish that this is a serious problem.
I fear that the nature and scale of this specific problem is being exaggerated. I personally believe that the vast majority of the telephone-using population are perfectly capable of dialling a 11-digit number accurately, if it is presented to them properly. The whole system relies on this capability. Difficulties can arise if one tries to get clever by analysing the digits. I find it hard to believe that a significant number of people believe that they can present a geographic area code without the leading zero, or that the zero at the front of a "long" geographic number need not be dialled.
The OP offers an example of someone who makes a particular mistake repeatedly - we must accept that this is a genuine case, and note the repetition of the error after it has been recognised. There are indeed many cases reported of those who are unwell and repeatedly dial PRS numbers without having properly decided to purchase the service, perhaps because they see them advertised or are unaware of the cost implications (nothing to do with any confusion over the digits of the number). We must be aware of such cases and press for all appropriate assistance to be provided for those unable to handle the full responsibilities that go with being connected to the telephone network.
The extent to which the National Numbering Plan can protect against the danger of mis-dialling is however limited.