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...

Post a reply to this message

On 01/09/2014 20:11, 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...

So, how many digits in your new number ?

-- 
IQ of crossposters with FU: 100 / (number of groups)
IQ of crossposters without FU: 100 / (1 + number of groups)
IQ of multiposters: 100 / ( (number of groups) * (number of groups))

Post a reply to this message

On 01/09/2014 08:48 PM, Le_Forgeron wrote:
> On 01/09/2014 20:11, 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...
>
> So, how many digits in your new number ?

It's exactly the same as the old number, except that now you always have 
to dial the area code, rather than only needing to dial it from outside 
the area.

...then again, everybody has mobile phones now, which don't have an 
"area", so...

Post a reply to this message

On 1-9-2014 21:48, Le_Forgeron wrote:

> So, how many digits in your new number ?
>

Here we have this system already in place for some years now. All 
numbers have 10 digits, same as mobile numbers by the way.

Thomas

Post a reply to this message

On 02/09/2014 08:28, Thomas de Groot wrote:
> On 1-9-2014 21:48, Le_Forgeron wrote:
>
>> So, how many digits in your new number ?
>>
>
> Here we have this system already in place for some years now. All
> numbers have 10 digits, same as mobile numbers by the way.
>
> Thomas

In the days of local exchanges. We could connect to another phone on it 
by dialling 1234. As the system was modernised the local exchange became 
larger and to phone anyone in it you would dial 567 1237 and to dial 
outside your area 041 567 1234. The post office/BT has tried to keep 
this facility but with more sophisticated networks it is an overhead.


-- 

Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

> Due to telephone number exhaustion, they're asking everybody to upgrade
> to IPv6 - er, I mean, they're changing the numbering plan.

You'd think they could just come up with a system that didn't require a 
"fix" every few years.

> 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.

Seems like only a temporary fix.

> Rather than, say, add new area codes or something, which would only
> affect people assigned these new numbers.

Their previous response to exchanges running out of numbers was to move 
them on to 02x area codes with 8 digit phone numbers - but obviously you 
can only have 10 of them, and I guess they are all used now. Maybe they 
need to introduce 7 digit phone numbers with a 0xxx area code for 
medium-large cities. What about 04xx, 05xx, 06xx numbers, are they used 
for anything?

Post a reply to this message

On 2-9-2014 10:26, Stephen wrote:

> In the days of local exchanges. We could connect to another phone on it
> by dialling 1234. As the system was modernised the local exchange became
> larger and to phone anyone in it you would dial 567 1237 and to dial
> outside your area 041 567 1234. The post office/BT has tried to keep
> this facility but with more sophisticated networks it is an overhead.

The good old days indeed. I remember those in France when the area code 
was a town name. Ours was Tremblay. You dialled only the first three 
letters which were written on the dial, much as letters are now given on 
cell phones.

Thomas

Post a reply to this message

On 02/09/2014 10:01 AM, scott wrote:
>> Due to telephone number exhaustion, they're asking everybody to upgrade
>> to IPv6 - er, I mean, they're changing the numbering plan.
>
> You'd think they could just come up with a system that didn't require a
> "fix" every few years.

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

> Seems like only a temporary fix.

Well, yeah... but so is IPv6, technically. ;-)

(Has anybody started using that yet? I know a fair few Linux distros 
enable it by default now - and won't tell you how to reliably turn it off!)

> Their previous response to exchanges running out of numbers was to move
> them on to 02x area codes with 8 digit phone numbers - but obviously you
> can only have 10 of them, and I guess they are all used now. Maybe they
> need to introduce 7 digit phone numbers with a 0xxx area code for
> medium-large cities. What about 04xx, 05xx, 06xx numbers, are they used
> for anything?

And to think, the dance school only just replaced their sign with one 
that says 01908 rather than 0908...

Still, at least they're not running out of country codes, eh?

Post a reply to this message

Le 2014-09-01 14:11, Orchid Win7 v1 a écrit :
> 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.

that's the goal.

Now that people always have to dial the 10 digits, you no longer need:

if ( first digit == 0 )
then { expect 10 digits because it's a long-distance call}
else { expect 8 digits because it's a local call}

So you can introduce new area codes that start with any number.

In North America, it used to be that the 2nd digit of the area code had 
to be 0 or 1, and the 2nd digit of the exchange couldn't.  This was 
because the selectors were hard wired to route the call to external 
turnks.

In the mid 90s, when cell phones became popular, they removed that 
restriction since by then, all phone switches were digital and you no 
longer had that hard-wiring restriction.  this allowed them to create 
new area codes that had any digit in the 2nd position, as well as 
assigning local exchanges with 0 or 1 in that position.  Giving north 
America 800 new available area codes, and each area code 20,000 new 
possible numbers.


-- 
/*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 2014-09-02 08:43, Francois Labreque a écrit :

QUALITY CONTROL!

> Le 2014-09-01 14:11, Orchid Win7 v1 a écrit :
>> 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.
>
> that's the goal.
>
> Now that people always have to dial the 10 digits, you no longer need:
>
> if ( first digit == 0 )
> then { expect 10 digits because it's a long-distance call}
> else { expect 8 digits because it's a local call}
>
> So you can introduce new area codes that start with any number.
>
> In North America, it used to be that the 2nd digit of the area code had
> to be 0 or 1, and the 2nd digit of the exchange couldn't.  This was
> because the selectors were hard wired to route the call to external turnks.
                        ^                                              ^^
                        in the phone swith                         trunks

>
> In the mid 90s, when cell phones became popular, they removed that
> restriction since by then, all phone switches were digital and you no
> longer had that hard-wiring restriction.  this allowed them to create
> new area codes that had any digit in the 2nd position, as well as
> assigning local exchanges with 0 or 1 in that position.  Giving north
> America 800 new available area codes, and each area code 20,000 new
                                                            ^^^^^^
                                                           200,000
> possible numbers.
>
>


-- 
/*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 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.

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

Post a reply to this message

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

I think people still want a real phone number for their desk, even if 
internally it is handled over VOIP. Maybe it's also because there are 
just more jobs where people have a phone on their desk (less 
manufacturing, more service etc).

> Well, yeah... but so is IPv6, technically. ;-)

Not in practise though, unless you envisage the global population going 
up by a factor of a billion, and each person having a billion devices 
that each require a billion IP addresses :-)

> And to think, the dance school only just replaced their sign with one
> that says 01908 rather than 0908...

Where my mum lives about 20+ years ago you could just dial 9 instead of 
0703 as a shortcut to the Southampton exchange. When you see *that* on a 
sign you know it's old.

Post a reply to this message

The german system is much easier:
Any number that starts with non-zero is inside the same area code.
Any number starting with zero starts with an area code.
Any number starting with two zeroes (or a plus) starts with a country code.
Area (actually city) codes vary in length from 2 to 5 digits, depending on size
of the exchange (bigger exchange, less numbers).
Phone numbers (without area code) vary from 3 to 7 digits (AFAIK) depending on
the age of the phone number and the size of the exchange.
What usually happened is that they introduced longer numbers before they ran aut
of numbers in the area code, meaning new numbers started with 8 or 9 and were
longer than the old numbers, or they prefixed the old numbers with a 1 (I think
they still started the new numbers with 8 in my hometown to prevent mixups since
you couldn't distinguish eg 4865 from 48658)

Regards
Aydan

Post a reply to this message

On 02/09/2014 02:30 PM, Aydan wrote:
> The german system is much easier:
> Any number that starts with non-zero is inside the same area code.
> Any number starting with zero starts with an area code.
> Any number starting with two zeroes (or a plus) starts with a country code.

That is exactly how the UK system works.

Or, it was until now, anyway... They want to make it so that the area 
code *always* comes first, so both the network number and host number 
can contain any combination of digits you want.

Er, I mean area code and telephone code. Damnit...

Post a reply to this message

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)


-- 
/*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

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

Post a reply to this message

>> 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

The Internet is for porn. :-P

Post a reply to this message

> 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.

Post a reply to this message

On 03/09/2014 07:43, 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.
>

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.

-- 

Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

>> 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.

Post a reply to this message

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

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