Am 03.09.2014 12:38, schrieb scott:
>>> Also it's stupid how most (all?) broadband providers force you to have a
>>> phone as well - I suspect a lot of people would be happy to pay a bit
>>> less and not have a landline at all.
>>>
>>
>> You need the landline to get the internet service to your router. So you
>> are paying line rental and get the phone service as a freebie.
>
> There must be some costs that could be cut though if a significant
> number of people didn't want the phone service on their line (I'm
> thinking less equipment in the exchange etc). After all if you choose
> just a phone line without internet it's cheaper than having both, but
> there's no option for just internet without phone.

With most providers nowadays offering only VoIP, there's not a single 
piece of hardware the phone service requires on the provider's side, and 
the data volume of phone service is rather small compared to today's 
internet.

Phone line without internet access is cheaper because you pay for less 
bandwidth.

Post a reply to this message

On 03/09/2014 11:38, scott wrote:
>>> Also it's stupid how most (all?) broadband providers force you to have a
>>> phone as well - I suspect a lot of people would be happy to pay a bit
>>> less and not have a landline at all.
>>>
>>
>> You need the landline to get the internet service to your router. So you
>> are paying line rental and get the phone service as a freebie.
>
> There must be some costs that could be cut though if a significant
> number of people didn't want the phone service on their line (I'm
> thinking less equipment in the exchange etc).After all if you choose
> just a phone line without internet it's cheaper than having both, but
> there's no option for just internet without phone.
>
 From my experience, helping my Sister-in-law move from having a BT 
phone line and Aol T'internet to a single provider.

You can still have separate services but a combined service is cheaper 
than either single service.

-- 

Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

Le 2014-09-02 16:14, clipka a écrit :
> Am 02.09.2014 22:01, schrieb Francois Labreque:
>> Le 2014-09-02 08:57, Le_Forgeron a écrit :
>>> Le 02/09/2014 14:43, Francois Labreque a écrit :
>>>>
>>>> In North America,
>>>
>>> Hollywood even get its own dedicated area-code, unreachable: 555, to be
>>> used in all movies and series.
>>>
>> Actually, that's the exchange.  Every area code has a "555" exchange
>> that is used for unreachable numbers (with the exception of 555-1212,
>> which the telephone directory assistance for that area code.  for
>> example, if I need to find the phone number of someone in my area code,
>> I dial 411, however, if I want to find the phone number of someone in
>> say, the 213 area code, I would dial 1-213-555-1212)
>
> ... and I would just look it up on the Internet :-P
>

Let's pretend my example was from before 1995. :)

-- 
/*Francois Labreque*/#local a=x+y;#local b=x+a;#local c=a+b;#macro P(F//
/*    flabreque    */L)polygon{5,F,F+z,L+z,L,F pigment{rgb 9}}#end union
/*        @        */{P(0,a)P(a,b)P(b,c)P(2*a,2*b)P(2*b,b+c)P(b+c,<2,3>)
/*   gmail.com     */}camera{orthographic location<6,1.25,-6>look_at a }

Post a reply to this message

Orchid Win7 v1 wrote:
> http://consumers.ofcom.org.uk/phone/numbering/dial-the-code/
>
> Due to telephone number exhaustion, they're asking everybody to upgrade
> to IPv6 - er, I mean, they're changing the numbering plan.
>
> Currently, all area codes start with 0. But that means you cannot assign
> anybody a telephone number that starts with 0, see? So they're making it
> so you always have to dial the area code. That way, we know it's the
> area code because it's at the beginning of the number, not because it
> starts with a 0.
>
> Rather than, say, add new area codes or something, which would only
> affect people assigned these new numbers.
>
> Still, I guess it could be worse...

By your words and news://news.povray.org:119/5405bb55$1@news.povray.org 
(assuming this person is refering to UK phone system):

UK phone system: 0x yyyy yyyy (x:0-9) (y:0-9)
0x : area code

adding the area code don't add new phone numbers, it only makes the 
number longer, making the number: yyyy yyyy y would

Ayyway...

Post a reply to this message

Orchid Win7 v1 wrote:
> http://consumers.ofcom.org.uk/phone/numbering/dial-the-code/
>
> Due to telephone number exhaustion, they're asking everybody to upgrade
> to IPv6 - er, I mean, they're changing the numbering plan.
>
> Currently, all area codes start with 0. But that means you cannot assign
> anybody a telephone number that starts with 0, see? So they're making it
> so you always have to dial the area code. That way, we know it's the
> area code because it's at the beginning of the number, not because it
> starts with a 0.
>
> Rather than, say, add new area codes or something, which would only
> affect people assigned these new numbers.
>
> Still, I guess it could be worse...

By your words and news://news.povray.org:119/5405bb55$1@news.povray.org 
(assuming this person is refering to UK phone system):

UK phone system: 0x yyyy yyyy (x:0-9) (y:0-9)
0x : area code

adding the area code don't add new phone numbers, it only makes the 
number longer, making the number: yyyy yyyy y would

Anyway...

Post a reply to this message

On 03/09/14 15:01, Saul Luizaga wrote:
> Orchid Win7 v1 wrote:
>> http://consumers.ofcom.org.uk/phone/numbering/dial-the-code/
>>
>> Due to telephone number exhaustion, they're asking everybody to upgrade
>> to IPv6 - er, I mean, they're changing the numbering plan.
>>
>> Currently, all area codes start with 0. But that means you cannot assign
>> anybody a telephone number that starts with 0, see? So they're making it
>> so you always have to dial the area code. That way, we know it's the
>> area code because it's at the beginning of the number, not because it
>> starts with a 0.
>>
>> Rather than, say, add new area codes or something, which would only
>> affect people assigned these new numbers.
>>
>> Still, I guess it could be worse...
> 
> By your words and news://news.povray.org:119/5405bb55$1@news.povray.org
> (assuming this person is refering to UK phone system):
> 
> UK phone system: 0x yyyy yyyy (x:0-9) (y:0-9)
> 0x : area code
> 
> adding the area code don't add new phone numbers, it only makes the
> number longer, making the number: yyyy yyyy y would
> 
> Anyway...

The London codes are in the form 020 x yyy zzzz. atm x is replaced with
'7', '8' or '3'. It is expected that '4' and '5' will be added by 2019.
It's worth noting that as of July 2014, all available London numbers
starting with '7' have been issued to telephone companies, along with
86% of those starting with '8' and 77% of numbers beginning with '3'.

John
-- 
Protect the Earth
It was not given to you by your parents
You hold it in trust for your children

Post a reply to this message

On 03/09/2014 15:48, Doctor John wrote:
> The London codes are in the form 020 x yyy zzzz.

Can you remember when it went from 01?

-- 

Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

On 03/09/14 16:35, Stephen wrote:
> On 03/09/2014 15:48, Doctor John wrote:
>> The London codes are in the form 020 x yyy zzzz.
> 
> Can you remember when it went from 01?
> 

1990: London split into 071 and 081 numbers. This should have doubled
the number of lines available but the idiots forgot to allow the re-use
of the first 3 following digits (the exchange code). Thus if 071 932
xxxx existed, you couldn't have 081 932 xxxx.
1995: 071 and 081 changed to 0171 and 0181 for no apparent reason.
(Actually I think they realised their previous mistake).
2000: 020 area code introduced and all local codes lengthened by
prefixing with 7 (for 0171) and 8 (for 0181). The 3 prefix was
introduced about 5 years later.

John
-- 
Protect the Earth
It was not given to you by your parents
You hold it in trust for your children

Post a reply to this message

On 03/09/14 17:28, Doctor John wrote:
> 
> 2000: 020 area code introduced and all local codes lengthened by
> prefixing with 7 (for 0171) and 8 (for 0181). The 3 prefix was
> introduced about 5 years later.
> 

Additional: Contrary to what is popularly believed, the '7' '8' and '3'
no longer signify Inner or Outer London.

John
-- 
Protect the Earth
It was not given to you by your parents
You hold it in trust for your children

Post a reply to this message

On Mon, 01 Sep 2014 19:11:27 +0100, Orchid Win7 v1 wrote:

> http://consumers.ofcom.org.uk/phone/numbering/dial-the-code/
> 
> Due to telephone number exhaustion, they're asking everybody to upgrade
> to IPv6 - er, I mean, they're changing the numbering plan.
> 
> Currently, all area codes start with 0. But that means you cannot assign
> anybody a telephone number that starts with 0, see? So they're making it
> so you always have to dial the area code. That way, we know it's the
> area code because it's at the beginning of the number, not because it
> starts with a 0.
> 
> Rather than, say, add new area codes or something, which would only
> affect people assigned these new numbers.
> 
> Still, I guess it could be worse...

Yes, you could live in the Utah 801 area code.

From some parts of the 801 area code, you *must* dial a '1' first, 
because it's a long distance call, even though it's the same area code.

Calling my neighbor used to not require the area code.  Now it does 
(that's pretty uniform in the US these days).

So, I used to call 555-1212.

Then, when it changed to 10-digit dialing, it was 801-555-1212.

Then they decided that part of it was long-distance, so you had to dial 
1-801-555-1212, but ONLY if you're in the part that's far enough away 
that it's long distance.  If you weren't, you'd get one of this series of 
tones:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_information_tones

(Played at high volume, which in and of itself was enough to piss me off)

Followed by either:

"The number you have dialed requires that you dial '1' before the number."

*OR*

"The number you have dialed is not a long distance call, and does not 
require the '1' before the number."

(messages to that effect, I don't recall any more what the specific 
language is)

And you'd have to hang up and dial the freakin' number again with (or 
without) the 1 as directed.

So you couldn't even always dial a '1' (or leave it out) and have it just 
put the call through, even though your intention was absolutely clear.

Jim

-- 
"I learned long ago, never to wrestle with a pig. You get dirty, and 
besides, the pig likes it." - George Bernard Shaw

Post a reply to this message