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

On Tue, 02 Sep 2014 13:09:48 +0100, Orchid Win7 v1 wrote:

> You'd think that with everybody moving to VOIP, demand for actual
> telephone numbers would be *rapidly decreasing*...

No, because everyone with a VOIP number still needs a POTS number, 
because that's all the old system knows.

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

On Wed, 03 Sep 2014 07:43:11 +0100, scott wrote:

>> You'd think that with everybody moving to VOIP, demand for actual
>> telephone numbers would be *rapidly decreasing*...
> 
> 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.

I don't have a landline.  Just mobile.

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

On 04/09/2014 03:47 AM, Jim Henderson wrote:
> I don't have a landline.  Just mobile.

I would do that, except then I have to stand outside to make phone calls.

(The signal strength outside the building is fine, but inside there's no 
reception at all. Presumably because the building is made of metal...)

Post a reply to this message

On 04/09/2014 03:46 AM, Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Tue, 02 Sep 2014 13:09:48 +0100, Orchid Win7 v1 wrote:
>
>> You'd think that with everybody moving to VOIP, demand for actual
>> telephone numbers would be *rapidly decreasing*...
>
> No, because everyone with a VOIP number still needs a POTS number,
> because that's all the old system knows.

Really? You need an actual phone number to run Skype? That's... that's 
like needing a static IP address to use IRC!

Post a reply to this message

Orchid Win7 v1 <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
> On 04/09/2014 03:46 AM, Jim Henderson wrote:
> > On Tue, 02 Sep 2014 13:09:48 +0100, Orchid Win7 v1 wrote:
> >
> >> You'd think that with everybody moving to VOIP, demand for actual
> >> telephone numbers would be *rapidly decreasing*...
> >
> > No, because everyone with a VOIP number still needs a POTS number,
> > because that's all the old system knows.
>
> Really? You need an actual phone number to run Skype? That's... that's
> like needing a static IP address to use IRC!

What he means is someone who wants to call you from a non-IP phone has to have a
way to reach you, and yes, you can have a "normal" phone number mapped to your
skype account so people can call you on skype from ordinary phones.

Regards
Aydan

Post a reply to this message

Le 2014-09-04 03:33, Orchid Win7 v1 a écrit :
> On 04/09/2014 03:47 AM, Jim Henderson wrote:
>> I don't have a landline.  Just mobile.
>
> I would do that, except then I have to stand outside to make phone calls.
>
> (The signal strength outside the building is fine, but inside there's no
> reception at all. Presumably because the building is made of metal...)

Or because one of your neighbors is afraid that THEY are listening to 
him, so he runs a jammer.

CSB 1:
There was an area close to where my wife used to live that was a 
complete dead zone as far as cell phone signals were concerned.  We'd 
routinely see trucks from the various cell-phone carriers drive by with 
all kinds of anntennas on the roofs.  They apparently found that the 
culprit was some old lady with a malfunctioning black and white TV from 
the 60s.

CSB 2:
I have a neighbor who must have a deffective piece of electronics or 
very high-powered industrial equipment in his basement as I get regular 
burts of EM noise that mess my wifi, 6GHz cordless phone and cell phone 
signals equally badly, and it's not something in my house (e.g. fridge 
or microwave oven).  My wife and I joke that one of our neighbors must 
be an alien trying to phone home.

-- 
/*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

Le 04/09/2014 09:33, Orchid Win7 v1 a écrit :
> On 04/09/2014 03:47 AM, Jim Henderson wrote:
>> I don't have a landline.  Just mobile.
> 
> I would do that, except then I have to stand outside to make phone calls.
> 
> (The signal strength outside the building is fine, but inside there's no
> reception at all. Presumably because the building is made of metal...)

Remind me of some new Mall place (was it in London ?): they discovered
at the opening of it that it was mobile-wave-proof, no mobile phone
worked inside.


-- 
Just because nobody complains does not mean all parachutes are perfect.

Post a reply to this message

> CSB 1:
> There was an area close to where my wife used to live that was a
> complete dead zone as far as cell phone signals were concerned. We'd
> routinely see trucks from the various cell-phone carriers drive by with
> all kinds of anntennas on the roofs. They apparently found that the
> culprit was some old lady with a malfunctioning black and white TV from
> the 60s.

When I was a teenager, I would occasionally catch my portable stereo 
emitting very quiet, muffled mumblings of human voices. It sounded like 
CBR chatter. And there was a house across the street with a radio aerial 
that was about 40 feet tall...

Post a reply to this message

On 04/09/2014 09:32 AM, Aydan wrote:
> Orchid Win7 v1<voi### [at] devnull>  wrote:
>> On 04/09/2014 03:46 AM, Jim Henderson wrote:
>>> On Tue, 02 Sep 2014 13:09:48 +0100, Orchid Win7 v1 wrote:
>>>
>>>> You'd think that with everybody moving to VOIP, demand for actual
>>>> telephone numbers would be *rapidly decreasing*...
>>>
>>> No, because everyone with a VOIP number still needs a POTS number,
>>> because that's all the old system knows.
>>
>> Really? You need an actual phone number to run Skype? That's... that's
>> like needing a static IP address to use IRC!
>
> What he means is someone who wants to call you from a non-IP phone has to have a
> way to reach you, and yes, you can have a "normal" phone number mapped to your
> skype account so people can call you on skype from ordinary phones.

Oh, right. Well yes, *clearly* if you want to connect to POTS, you need 
a POTS number. I meant, I thought everybody uses Internet chat and video 
conferencing now... (Well, perhaps not in business circles, but for 
social...)

Post a reply to this message

On 04/09/2014 19:03, Orchid Win7 v1 wrote:
> I meant, I thought everybody uses Internet chat and video
> conferencing now... (Well, perhaps not in business circles, but for
> social...)

I take it you do?

-- 

Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

Am 04.09.2014 20:02, schrieb Orchid Win7 v1:
>> CSB 1:
>> There was an area close to where my wife used to live that was a
>> complete dead zone as far as cell phone signals were concerned. We'd
>> routinely see trucks from the various cell-phone carriers drive by with
>> all kinds of anntennas on the roofs. They apparently found that the
>> culprit was some old lady with a malfunctioning black and white TV from
>> the 60s.
>
> When I was a teenager, I would occasionally catch my portable stereo
> emitting very quiet, muffled mumblings of human voices. It sounded like
> CBR chatter. And there was a house across the street with a radio aerial
> that was about 40 feet tall...

We could eavesdrop on our neighbor's CBR transmissions using an old tape 
recorder (from the pre-cassette era).

Post a reply to this message

On 04/09/2014 08:51 PM, Stephen wrote:
> On 04/09/2014 19:03, Orchid Win7 v1 wrote:
>> I meant, I thought everybody uses Internet chat and video
>> conferencing now... (Well, perhaps not in business circles, but for
>> social...)
>
> I take it you do?

Since when do I have anyone to talk to? :-P

Post a reply to this message

On 04/09/2014 21:59, Orchid Win7 v1 wrote:
> On 04/09/2014 08:51 PM, Stephen wrote:
>> On 04/09/2014 19:03, Orchid Win7 v1 wrote:
>>> I meant, I thought everybody uses Internet chat and video
>>> conferencing now... (Well, perhaps not in business circles, but for
>>> social...)
>>
>> I take it you do?
>
> Since when do I have anyone to talk to? :-P

You use Skype to talk to your mum?

(How is she coping since you ran away from home?)

-- 

Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

On Thu, 04 Sep 2014 08:33:48 +0100, Orchid Win7 v1 wrote:

> On 04/09/2014 03:47 AM, Jim Henderson wrote:
>> I don't have a landline.  Just mobile.
> 
> I would do that, except then I have to stand outside to make phone
> calls.
> 
> (The signal strength outside the building is fine, but inside there's no
> reception at all. Presumably because the building is made of metal...)

Nope.

My apartment building is 24 floors of steel and concrete.  No problem 
with reception at all.

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

On Thu, 04 Sep 2014 08:34:35 +0100, Orchid Win7 v1 wrote:

> On 04/09/2014 03:46 AM, Jim Henderson wrote:
>> On Tue, 02 Sep 2014 13:09:48 +0100, Orchid Win7 v1 wrote:
>>
>>> You'd think that with everybody moving to VOIP, demand for actual
>>> telephone numbers would be *rapidly decreasing*...
>>
>> No, because everyone with a VOIP number still needs a POTS number,
>> because that's all the old system knows.
> 
> Really? You need an actual phone number to run Skype? That's... that's
> like needing a static IP address to use IRC!

You need an actual phone number if people who use a real phone system 
want to call you on Skype.  That's what "Skype In" is, IIRC.

How else do you think someone with a regular, normal phone is going to 
phone you on a Skype only setup?

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

On Thu, 04 Sep 2014 19:03:46 +0100, Orchid Win7 v1 wrote:

> On 04/09/2014 09:32 AM, Aydan wrote:
>> Orchid Win7 v1<voi### [at] devnull>  wrote:
>>> On 04/09/2014 03:46 AM, Jim Henderson wrote:
>>>> On Tue, 02 Sep 2014 13:09:48 +0100, Orchid Win7 v1 wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> You'd think that with everybody moving to VOIP, demand for actual
>>>>> telephone numbers would be *rapidly decreasing*...
>>>>
>>>> No, because everyone with a VOIP number still needs a POTS number,
>>>> because that's all the old system knows.
>>>
>>> Really? You need an actual phone number to run Skype? That's... that's
>>> like needing a static IP address to use IRC!
>>
>> What he means is someone who wants to call you from a non-IP phone has
>> to have a way to reach you, and yes, you can have a "normal" phone
>> number mapped to your skype account so people can call you on skype
>> from ordinary phones.
> 
> Oh, right. Well yes, *clearly* if you want to connect to POTS, you need
> a POTS number. I meant, I thought everybody uses Internet chat and video
> conferencing now... (Well, perhaps not in business circles, but for
> social...)

Actually, we use a combination of Google Hangouts, Webex, a thing called 
"Biba" (which is actually kinda interesting), and Cisco Jabber (which 
gives me an outside phone number).

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

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.

Post a reply to this message

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
-- 
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 05/09/2014 06:48 PM, Doctor John wrote:
> 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.

It isn't even BT. Ofcom have decided that this is what must happen. BT 
is merely the messenger.

Post a reply to this message

On 05/09/2014 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.

In my opinion there are two reasons.
To be funded, national projects have to be a vote winner and spending a 
very large number of Pounds Sterling to change phone numbers (again) is 
not going to be attractive to politicians. Our infrastructure is no 
longer in public hands.* It was sold off to private concerns. So there 
is also the question of who is going to pay for it.
The other reason is we do not have a good track record for large scale 
IT projects. The only people who make money are the consultancies and 
often they are cancelled.

*	The exception to this is Kingston upon Hull in Yorkshire (say no 
more). They have the only municipal telephone system in the UK.
  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/KCOM_Group


-- 

Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

On 03/09/2014 17:28, Doctor John wrote:
> 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.
>

Thanks John.
I pine for the days when I could dial GOV 1234. The phone would ring, 
the television would be turned down and the whole house would listen in.

Now some people don't even leave the room to have a private 
conversation. So things haven't changed much. Except the string is longer.


-- 

Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

On 06/09/14 13:43, Stephen wrote:
> 
> Thanks John.
> I pine for the days when I could dial GOV 1234. The phone would ring,
> the television would be turned down and the whole house would listen in.
> 

You 'ad a television? You were lucky!

When I were a lad etc etc :-D

John

BTW I can still remember our telephone number from the good old days:
RIN 4773
-- 
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 06/09/14 11:25, Orchid Win7 v1 wrote:
> 
> It isn't even BT. Ofcom have decided that this is what must happen. BT
> is merely the messenger.

True. Mea culpa, mea culpa, mea maxima culpa

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 6-9-2014 15:06, Doctor John wrote:
> On 06/09/14 13:43, Stephen wrote:
>>
>> Thanks John.
>> I pine for the days when I could dial GOV 1234. The phone would ring,
>> the television would be turned down and the whole house would listen in.
>>
>
> You 'ad a television? You were lucky!
>
> When I were a lad etc etc :-D
>
> John
>
> BTW I can still remember our telephone number from the good old days:
> RIN 4773
>

Oh dear, so you had the same system I knew in France! I believe I 
remember our number was TRE 1456.

The good old days etc etc :-D

Thomas

Post a reply to this message

On 06/09/2014 14:06, Doctor John wrote:
> On 06/09/14 13:43, Stephen wrote:
>>
>> Thanks John.
>> I pine for the days when I could dial GOV 1234. The phone would ring,
>> the television would be turned down and the whole house would listen in.
>>
>
> You 'ad a television? You were lucky!
>

My grandmother's actually.

> When I were a lad etc etc :-D
>

Kat's whisker Radio?
</Joke>

>
> BTW I can still remember our telephone number from the good old days:
> RIN 4773
>

And I can remember my Grannie's Co-op Divie number, 87771.

-- 

Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

Le 2014-09-06 08:43, Stephen a écrit :
>
> Now some people don't even leave the room to have a private
> conversation. So things haven't changed much. Except the string is longer.
>
>

As my uncle said:  It used to be that when you saw someone talking to 
themselve on the street, you'd assume they were crazy, but now, you must 
first check for a Bluetooth earpiece, before making that assumption.

-- 
/*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

On 05/09/2014 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,

It is more or less like that now, most numbers are 01xxx yyyyyy and the 
larger cities have 02x yyyy yyyy. Mobile numbers are 07xxxxxxxxx and 
then there are a load of special-rate numbers starting 03, 08, 09 etc.

The system works well as the larger cities have shorter area codes and 
longer local numbers. I think that system should just be rolled out more 
across the country with numbers like 04xx yyy yyyy for medium sized 
cities like Milton Keynes. This is how the system in Germany works. 
There would be no need to change the majority of existing numbers then.

> 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.

IIRC we've been on digital exchanges for at least 20 years now. I can 
just about remember visiting our local exchange for the demo when they 
switched over (a few seconds to connect vs the phone ringing the instant 
you hit the last digit).

> If you need more numbers: xxx yyyy yyyy y that way you increase 10 times
> the availability,

You can't do that without everyone changing their phone number though, 
something I suspect they are extremely keen to avoid.

Post a reply to this message

On 08/09/2014 13:36, Francois Labreque wrote:
> Le 2014-09-06 08:43, Stephen a écrit :
>>
>> Now some people don't even leave the room to have a private
>> conversation. So things haven't changed much. Except the string is
>> longer.
>>
>>
>
> As my uncle said:  It used to be that when you saw someone talking to
> themselve on the street, you'd assume they were crazy, but now, you must
> first check for a Bluetooth earpiece, before making that assumption.
>

And headscarf's, as I noticed today. It seems that a headscarf can be a 
hands free device.

-- 

Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

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

Stephen wrote:
> In my opinion there are two reasons.
> To be funded, national projects have to be a vote winner and spending a
> very large number of Pounds Sterling to change phone numbers (again) is
> not going to be attractive to politicians. Our infrastructure is no
> longer in public hands.* It was sold off to private concerns. So there
> is also the question of who is going to pay for it.
> The other reason is we do not have a good track record for large scale
> IT projects. The only people who make money are the consultancies and
> often they are cancelled.
>
> *    The exception to this is Kingston upon Hull in Yorkshire (say no
> more). They have the only municipal telephone system in the UK.
>   http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/KCOM_Group

That's the problem, politicians deciding on the feasibility by political 
reasons, when experts, in this case engineers, should evaluate and 
decide the best path, they should be the authority and the evaluation 
made public for people to vote on the Internet, if not, just go to your 
Town-Hall/Municipality and write your decision on a book, simple and 
fast then count, communicate to the Gov, made the count with witnesses 
and public on a newspaper, the newspaper will do it for free as a 
community service and regulated by a law, which would make all business 
do something similar in turn at sometime.

  Public services IMO shouldn't be private matters, should be paid, 
administrated and decide by the public, politicians aren't the oracle of 
truth, just an administration instrument with a contributing perspective.

Post a reply to this message

The probably my analog backup idea is a bad 1. Yes, more sensical system 
is better.

Post a reply to this message

> Well since my number set is bigger I don't see a problem everyone
> keeping their numbers, anyway looks efficient enough.

How can you have people keeping their existing numbers whilst adding 
more digits? If you have some people with 6 digit numbers and others 
with 8 digit, how does the system know whether to connect or not after 
the 6th digit?

Post a reply to this message

Le 12/09/2014 12:18, scott a écrit :
>> Well since my number set is bigger I don't see a problem everyone
>> keeping their numbers, anyway looks efficient enough.
> 
> How can you have people keeping their existing numbers whilst adding
> more digits? If you have some people with 6 digit numbers and others
> with 8 digit, how does the system know whether to connect or not after
> the 6th digit?

The same way we have here "short" number: dedicates a heading digit for
them.

As long as all the 6 digits numbers do not cover the whole tree, and in
particular, a first digit is still unused, you can make such scheme:

 all numbers starting with 1 to 5 have 6 digits.
 all numbers starting with 6 have 8 digits.
 all numbers starting with 7 have at least 9 digits.
 numbers starting with 73 have 10 digits.
 numbers starting with 74 have 11 digits, unless its 745 which have 12
digits.

Here (France), it's 10/9 digits. (sort of)
Locally, it's 10 digits: first is for choice of carrier by caller, then
it's the international number of 9 digits.

But, number starting with 1 (as the carrier) are in fact urgency/utility
number (police, fireman, and so on), and are 2 or 3 digits at most.
(including the European 112, but fireman is on 18, medical on 15 and
police on 17))
well, 118xyz is the privatized look-up system (previously 12)), so you
can pay more for a previously free service.

Number starting with 3 are short numbers for TV/radio/and other
commercial. (4 or 5 digits)

Number starting with 0, 4, 7, 8, 9 are carrier's choice by caller.
(well 0 is just: use default operator, not a dedicated operator)
So far, 2,5,6 are back in the pool.

Assuming you are not starting with 1, 2, 3, 5 or 6, the second number
lead to:
1 to 5: geographical mapping
6 & 7 : mobile phone
8 : variously taxed number (0800 is free, 08x.. might cost you 200€ per
call or more, even for 1 minute)
9 : land line, not geographically mapped (most ADSL/voip phone-box).
0 : international call (followed by country code and international number)

Well... last catcha, 16XY is an extension made allow to choose between
more carriers (XY being the identifier of the carrier).

So, if you are playful, you can actually dial 13 digits to reach your
neighbour. (4 of 16XY, and 9 of the actual line that an Australian would
have dialed too).

See, from 2 digits down to 13, without crossing a border.

-- 
Just because nobody complains does not mean all parachutes are perfect.

Post a reply to this message

>> How can you have people keeping their existing numbers whilst adding
>> more digits? If you have some people with 6 digit numbers and others
>> with 8 digit, how does the system know whether to connect or not after
>> the 6th digit?
>
> The same way we have here "short" number: dedicates a heading digit for
> them.
>
> As long as all the 6 digits numbers do not cover the whole tree, and in
> particular, a first digit is still unused, you can make such scheme:

Of course if you've designed the system that way from the start, but if 
you're in a city that's about to run out of fixed-length numbers, there 
won't be any large chunks of the tree left to use as a header for long 
numbers.

Post a reply to this message

On 12/09/2014 07:47, Saul Luizaga wrote:
>
>   Public services IMO shouldn't be private matters, should be paid,
> administrated and decide by the public, politicians aren't the oracle of
> truth, just an administration instrument with a contributing perspective.

I agree and I don't agree. :-)

Politicians aren't the oracle of truth, they are all devotes of Belial. 
The Lord of lies.

-- 

Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

yy yyyy running out
implement yyy yyyy
your number is 12 3456
new number 012 3456
publish nation wide daily for a week: just fill out with zeros to your left.
problem solved.

Post a reply to this message

On Fri, 12 Sep 2014 13:36:25 -0400, Saul Luizaga wrote:

> yy yyyy running out implement yyy yyyy your number is 12 3456 new number
> 012 3456 publish nation wide daily for a week: just fill out with zeros
> to your left.
> problem solved.

Except that '0' as a phone number prefix has special meaning in various 
places around the world.

If I start a call in the US here with "011" (actually, now I think of it, 
that may be a global thing), that means it's an international call.

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

There is a default wait time on phones, where the system decides that 
you've finished dialing, it's about 2-3 seconds, no modification at all 
could be the solution.

Post a reply to this message

Well blame the Monetary System, promoter of all corruption, that's why I 
advocate for TheVenusProject.con and TheZeitgeistMovement.com promoting 
a scientific alternative economy, kinda of ideal but moving towards it 
could start solving many problems. Learning and watching videos in 
YouTube about it have enlighten me a lot about politics and corruption, 
it's not mostly people, but the environment, if you're in the pit of 
corruption, or the cleanest most ethical place on Earth it doesn't 
matter, the non-written evolutionary law is the same: adapt or die; so, 
politics being the pit of corruption, shouldn't be a surprise 
politicians get corrupted.

Post a reply to this message

On 13/09/14 00:59, Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Fri, 12 Sep 2014 13:36:25 -0400, Saul Luizaga wrote:
> 
>> yy yyyy running out implement yyy yyyy your number is 12 3456 new number
>> 012 3456 publish nation wide daily for a week: just fill out with zeros
>> to your left.
>> problem solved.
> 
> Except that '0' as a phone number prefix has special meaning in various 
> places around the world.
> 
> If I start a call in the US here with "011" (actually, now I think of it, 
> that may be a global thing), that means it's an international call.
> 
> Jim
> 

BTW Saul seems to have changed his position. His original idea was a
suffix, now it's a prefix.

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 13/09/14 03:14, Saul Luizaga wrote:
> Well blame the Monetary System, promoter of all corruption, that's why I
> advocate for TheVenusProject.con and TheZeitgeistMovement.com promoting
> a scientific alternative economy, kinda of ideal but moving towards it
> could start solving many problems. Learning and watching videos in
> YouTube about it have enlighten me a lot about politics and corruption,
> it's not mostly people, but the environment, if you're in the pit of
> corruption, or the cleanest most ethical place on Earth it doesn't
> matter, the non-written evolutionary law is the same: adapt or die; so,
> politics being the pit of corruption, shouldn't be a surprise
> politicians get corrupted.

... and now I cease following your replies

-- 
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