Doctor John wrote:
> On 05/09/14 16:37, Saul Luizaga wrote:
>> Why UK having such a strong economy doesn't renew its phone system and
>> simply makes it xxx yyyy yyyy, xxx: are codes, yyyy yyyy: phone numbers,
>> because looks like UK is complicating it more needlessly over time, this
>> should be specially easy IMO since UK has engineering and other
>> resources so UK make a general call to UK engineers and design it on
>> digital, and have an analog backup system, in case the digital 1 fails.
>> If you need more numbers: xxx yyyy yyyy y that way you increase 10 times
>> the availability, of course the analog should have room for this as well
>> as the digital 1, why keep building on the old system? I know is money
>> but UK economy AFAIK is strong and it'd better I think, don't know the
>> feasibility of such a project but I'd bet UK Gov hasn't even weighed the
>> possibility of it.
>
> I beg to differ. Although the system being used at present adds nearly
> 10 million numbers each time you add another 'x' prefix (using my
> example 020 x yyy zzzz) and yours would add nearly 100 million, the
> present system is much easier to implement. Remember, if you're going to
> change existing numbers, you have to inform _every_ person what their
> new number is going to be - an impossible task to complete with 100%
> success. The way BT is proceeding means that you don't have to inform
> anyone of the additional numbers since existing lines keep the same
> number and only new lines get a new prefix.
>
> John
>
Well since my number set is bigger I don't see a problem everyone 
keeping their numbers, anyway looks efficient enough.

Post a reply to this message