Charles Bryant <ch@dce.ie> (04/03/91)
With our bills Telecom Eireann customers have got a leaflet giving the first stages of the 01 area number expansion plan. Last year the first stage expanded numbers starting with 23, 24, 26, 27, 28, 70 and 79 adding a 6 on the front. This put Dublin in the unusual position of having numbers both six and seven digits long in the same calling area (does anywhere else have variable length local numbers?). From April 8th all numbers starting with 69, 8 will have a 2 added to make them 269 XXXX and 28X XXXX. By 1994 all numbers will have been changed to start with 2, 4, 6 or 8. By experiment, I verified that the 2 is currently optional. It makes me wonder why British Telecom split London from 01 into 071 and 081. Why not just add a digit? And if eight digit numbers are too long, why not split into 017 and 018 leaving more room for expansion. Or even split 01 DXX XXXX into ten areas 01D DXX XXXX removing the need for the tables to convert old number to new area. Charles Bryant (ch@dce.ie)
cmoore@brl.mil (Carl Moore) (04/06/91)
I understood the London 071/081 split to be a part of number-length standardization; apparently, UK city codes are now to start with N where N is not 0 or 1 (this is ignoring the leading 0 used to call between UK areas).
dik@cwi.nl (Dik T. Winter) (04/06/91)
In article <telecom11.266.3@eecs.nwu.edu> ch@dce.ie (Charles Bryant) writes: > This put Dublin in the unusual position of > having numbers both six and seven digits long in the same calling area > (does anywhere else have variable length local numbers?). Yes, there are very many places where that does occur. In Amsterdam it was only a month ago that all six digit numbers were changed to seven digit numbers. Many places in Germany and Italy have variable length numbers. For instance, in Muenchen numbers vary from four to eight digits. dik t. winter, cwi, amsterdam, nederland dik@cwi.nl
hpa@casbah.acns.nwu.edu (H. Peter Anvin) (04/07/91)
In article <telecom11.266.3@eecs.nwu.edu> Charles Bryant <ch@dce.ie> writes: > This put Dublin in the unusual position of > having numbers both six and seven digits long in the same calling area > (does anywhere else have variable length local numbers?). I don't know if you are referring to Ireland, but this is commonplace in my home country of Sweden. It is rather a rule than an exception that there are varying length local numbers, except in four-digit area codes (due to a nine-digit limit and a five-digit minimum for the number). Examples: Stockholm, 08, has seven-digit numbers if the number starts with 6 or 7, otherwise six digits. V{ster}s, 021, has six-digit numbers if the number starts with 1 or 3 (City of V{ster}s), otherwise five-digit numbers (surrounding areas). Actually, 020 (toll free) is the only exeption I am aware of. All 020 numbers have the maximum possible six digits. 071, pay-per-call (like U.S. 900) came after I left Sweden; it is likely to work the same way. P.S. 08 = +46 8, 021 = +46 21 etc. hpa = H. Peter Anvin (in case you wondered) * Heja Sverige! INTERNET: hpa@casbah.acns.nwu.edu FIDONET: 1:115/989.4 HAM RADIO: N9ITP, SM4TKN RBBSNET: 8:970/101.4
David E A Wilson <david@cs.uow.edu.au> (04/08/91)
ch@dce.ie (Charles Bryant) writes: > (does anywhere else have variable length local numbers?). Yes - Sydney Australia. Up until last year we had five, six and seven digit numbers in the 02 area code. For example - from the Government page of the phone book: 2 0521 Trafficking-Law Enforcement 29 2622 Bus Travel 240 2111 Boat Moorings With the closure of the old Dalley exchange (205xx) Telecom also deleted the last five digit numbers (according to a newspaper article). More usually - if the STD area code is 0xx then numbers are nx xxxx and in capital cities (STD code 0n) the numbers are nxx xxxx. David Wilson Dept Comp Sci, Uni of Wollongong david@cs.uow.edu.au
John Slater <John.Slater@uk.sun.com> (04/08/91)
In article <telecom11.266.3@eecs.nwu.edu> Charles Bryant writes: > It makes me wonder why British Telecom split London from 01 into 071 > and 081. Why not just add a digit? And if eight digit numbers are too > long, why not split into 017 and 018 leaving more room for expansion. > Or even split 01 DXX XXXX into ten areas 01D DXX XXXX removing the > need for the tables to convert old number to new area. And why didn't they split it several dozen other ways too? My favourite would have been north and south of the river, which would make it a lot easier to find the new number as most people know which side of the river a given address is on, from the postcode. Still, they did it and that's an end to it. Except that it isn't: there are medium-term plans to add an extra digit to every phone number in the country, and longer-term plans to rehash the entire system, with lifetime phone numbers (see an earlier thread) and other wondrous things, no doubt. I believe the reason BT didn't choose the "017 & 018" option is that they preferred to keep the entire "01..." sequence clear for as yet unspecified future use. This might well include implementation of some of the schemes mentioned above, I speculate. John Slater Sun Microsystems UK, Gatwick Office My email address is John.Slater@UK.Sun.COM, despite what it might say above.
Tim Oldham <tjo@fulcrum.bt.co.uk> (04/09/91)
In article <telecom11.276.3@eecs.nwu.edu> John Slater writes: > I believe the reason BT didn't choose the "017 & 018" option is that > they preferred to keep the entire "01..." sequence clear for as yet > unspecified future use. This might well include implementation of some > of the schemes mentioned above, I speculate. I believe (and I don't speak for my employer on this) that as 01 is already the international dialling sequence (eg the USA is 0101), 017 and 018 were out of the question, or just plain confusing. London was split as it was (Central/Outer) because Central London has a much higher growth rate of demand for numbers. For example, there is a high concentration of companies in Central London, and a lot of them are extending their fax and direct-dial facilities as they grow and/or replace their PABXs. Mercury were also demanding more numbers. While BT put forward the recommendation, paid for the advertising to make it a success, and in so doing provided more numbers for Mercury to use, Oftel (the UK Telecomms regulator) had to approve the plan. I would also dispute John's claim that most people know which London districts are North or South of the river. I don't speak for BT on any of this. Tim Oldham, BT Group Computing Services tjo@its.bt.co.uk ...uunet!ukc!its!tjo
Colum Mylod <cmylod@nl.oracle.com> (04/10/91)
In article <telecom11.266.3@eecs.nwu.edu> ch@dce.ie (Charles Bryant) writes: X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 11, Issue 266, Message 3 of 16 > With our bills Telecom Eireann customers have got a leaflet giving > the first stages of the 01 area number expansion plan. [...] > From April 8th all numbers starting with 69, 8 will have a 2 added > to make them 269 XXXX and 28X XXXX. Lucky you getting some info, even if they stick in a bill too! Those of us dialling from overseas (where publicity on the changes is zilch) are just getting tri-tone for the numbers that changed on 8 April. Can Telecom Eireann not afford some message machines to tell us what has changed, instead of playing do-da-de and putting more work on enquiries services? Does any other telco not put out a message on changed numbers? London is still doing so for calls to 1 or for incorrect 71/81 numbers, as is the Dutch PTT. Colum Mylod cmylod@nl.oracle.com Above is IMHO
Bob Goudreau <goudreau@dg-rtp.dg.com> (04/11/91)
In article <telecom11.278.8@eecs.nwu.edu>, tjo@fulcrum.bt.co.uk (Tim Oldham) writes: > > I believe the reason BT didn't choose the "017 & 018" option is that > > they preferred to keep the entire "01..." sequence clear for as yet > > unspecified future use. > I believe (and I don't speak for my employer on this) that as 01 is > already the international dialling sequence (eg the USA is 0101), 017 > and 018 were out of the question, or just plain confusing. Beg your pardon? I thought (and your own example seems to prove) that the international prefix was "010", not "01". So where's the ambiguity for 017, 018, or indeed any 01x (as long as x != 0)? Bob Goudreau +1 919 248 6231 Data General Corporation goudreau@dg-rtp.dg.com 62 Alexander Drive ...!mcnc!rti!xyzzy!goudreau Research Triangle Park, NC 27709, USA
Charles Bryant <ch@dce.ie> (04/12/91)
In article <telecom11.279.10@eecs.nwu.edu> Colum Mylod <cmylod@nl. oracle.com> writes: > In article <telecom11.266.3@eecs.nwu.edu> ch@dce.ie (Charles Bryant) > writes: >> [In the 01 area...] From April 8th all numbers starting with >> 69, 8 will have a 2 added to make them 269 XXXX and 28X XXXX. > Lucky you getting some info, even if they stick in a bill too! Those > of us dialling from overseas (where publicity on the changes is zilch) > are just getting tri-tone for the numbers that changed on 8 April. I just tried dialling an 85X XXX number several times and got: "The number you have dialled has been changed to seven digits. Please place the digit two in front of the local number and dial again." ... repeated twice (and starting at a random point). If you don't get this recording you could try reporting the problem (via the international operator, I suppose). Charles Bryant (ch@dce.ie)