 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>
> 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:
>>
>> 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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
