Dexter@blueyonder.co.uk wrote:
> On Mon, 10 Oct 2005 18:55:44 +0100, "Ivor Jones"
> <ivor@despammed.invalid> wrote:
>
>
>>Indeed, but you're dialling the full number from outside London. Try
>>dialling just the last 7 from within London. This is what incorrect
>>formatting implies.
>
> But why should the rest of the UK population concern themselves with
> people who live in London they should know what they need to dial to
> call another London number .
> I know what you are getting at Ivor but it just does not matter to
> those of us who live outside London 0207 will do end of story .
I think it can matter, and here's why.
In Bristol, some years ago, all numbers were changed from 0272 xxxxxx
(six digits) to 0117 9xxxxxx (seven digits). This has led people to
believe that the area code for Bristol is 0117 9, when in fact it's 0117.
We have since had a significant number of numbers (sorry) allocated
outside the 9xx xxxx range, and confused people are still under the
impression that you have to stick a nine on the front of Bristol
numbers, regardless of whether it has seven digits already. So many
people trying to dial one of the new 3xx xxxx numbers (for instance)
will typically dial 93x xxxx (x). The resultant confusion forces at
least two of my colleagues to field misdialled telephone calls on an
almost daily basis - ten years after the dialling code and local numbers
were all changed. This is in just one department in a Bristol company.
Similarly, if people get it stuck into their heads that the dialling
code for Central London is 0207 regardless, and new numbers starting
3xxx xxxx are issued in Central London, I pity any poor devils whose
numbers begin with 020 73.
On Mon, 10 Oct 2005 22:56:06 GMT, Keith the Confused
<mSiPtAhMy@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
>In Bristol, some years ago, all numbers were changed from 0272 xxxxxx
>(six digits) to 0117 9xxxxxx (seven digits). This has led people to
>believe that the area code for Bristol is 0117 9, when in fact it's 0117.
We actually had a mail shot from a telecoms company in Reading which
had a similar misformated number. We knew it was one digit too many
but never did manage to contact them to find out which or why....
after all if they couldn't get their own number right we really went't
interested.
In message <0ljgk1l35q0b1enicb70ej9jvrnfth40a3@4ax.com>, Dexter@blueyonder.co.uk writes
>I seem to remember when the 01 for London was changed BT making a big
>splash saying for London we all had to dial 0207 and 0208 instead of 01.
"dave @ stejonda"
<nospamdeleteabusedave@stejonda.freeuk.com> wrote in
message news:kk6SJ+AaX1SDFAhO@privacy.net
> In message <0ljgk1l35q0b1enicb70ej9jvrnfth40a3@4ax.com>,
> Dexter@blueyonder.co.uk writes
> > I seem to remember when the 01 for London was changed
> > BT making a big splash saying for London we all had to
> > dial 0207 and 0208 instead of 01.
>
> what planet was that on then?
On Mon, 10 Oct 2005 10:36:36 +0100, David Floyd wrote:
> In message of Mon, 10 Oct 2005, Steve Peake writes
>>On Sun, 9 Oct 2005 17:34:42 +0100, Ivor Jones wrote:
>>
>>> No, Sipgate, along with other providers, provide 020 numbers. If people
>>> can't get their heads round that it isn't my problem, nor is it
>>> Sipgate's..!
>>
>>Yes it is, people expect you to have an 020 8 number living in an 020 8
>>area,
>
> There is no such thing as an 020 8 area. London numbers beginning with
> 3, 7, or 8 can be anywhere in London. Just because the original change
> over referred to two different areas existing at the time doesn't mean
> that it is still confined to those areas - it isn't.
Which of course is stating the obvious, but doesn't help at all.
Which would be easier, trying to educate several million people, or just
providing an 0208 number?
In message <zi7lcp0pxlza.bgwtmp0tp95.dlg@40tude.net>, Steve Peake
<spam@puppet-head.co.uk> writes
>Which would be easier, trying to educate several million people, or
>just providing an 0208 number?
I think there should be a recorded message set up so that whenever
anyone dials 0208... or 0207... instead of 020 8... and 020 7... they
get told of their error.
In message of Tue, 11 Oct 2005, dave @ stejonda writes
>In message <zi7lcp0pxlza.bgwtmp0tp95.dlg@40tude.net>, Steve Peake
><spam@puppet-head.co.uk> writes
>>Which would be easier, trying to educate several million people, or
>>just providing an 0208 number?
>
>I think there should be a recorded message set up so that whenever
>anyone dials 0208... or 0207... instead of 020 8... and 020 7... they
>get told of their error.
>
"dave @ stejonda"
<nospamdeleteabusedave@stejonda.freeuk.com> wrote in
message news:WmV+5dEmt2SDFAWL@privacy.net
> In message <zi7lcp0pxlza.bgwtmp0tp95.dlg@40tude.net>,
> Steve Peake <spam@puppet-head.co.uk> writes
> > Which would be easier, trying to educate several
> > million people, or just providing an 0208 number?
>
> I think there should be a recorded message set up so that
> whenever anyone dials 0208... or 0207... instead of 020
> 8... and 020 7... they get told of their error.
They'll certainly get an error if they try dialling just the last 7
digits..!
Steve Peake wrote:
> On Mon, 10 Oct 2005 10:36:36 +0100, David Floyd wrote:
>> In message of Mon, 10 Oct 2005, Steve Peake writes
>>>On Sun, 9 Oct 2005 17:34:42 +0100, Ivor Jones wrote:
>>>>No, Sipgate, along with other providers, provide 020 numbers. If people
>>>>can't get their heads round that it isn't my problem, nor is it
>>>>Sipgate's..!
>>>
>>>Yes it is, people expect you to have an 020 8 number living in an 020 8
>>>area,
>>
>>There is no such thing as an 020 8 area. London numbers beginning with
>>3, 7, or 8 can be anywhere in London. Just because the original change
>>over referred to two different areas existing at the time doesn't mean
>>that it is still confined to those areas - it isn't.
>
> Which of course is stating the obvious, but doesn't help at all.
>
> Which would be easier, trying to educate several million people, or just
> providing an 0208 number?
You'd rather do what is easy instead of what is right?
Ivor Jones wrote:
> "dave @ stejonda"
> <nospamdeleteabusedave@stejonda.freeuk.com> wrote in
> message news:kk6SJ+AaX1SDFAhO@privacy.net
> > In message <0ljgk1l35q0b1enicb70ej9jvrnfth40a3@4ax.com>,
> > Dexter@blueyonder.co.uk writes
> > > I seem to remember when the 01 for London was changed
> > > BT making a big splash saying for London we all had to
> > > dial 0207 and 0208 instead of 01.
> >
> > what planet was that on then?
>
> I was wondering that..!
>
> Ivor
<Dexter@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message
news:uh2ok1t2g0i2k2ug5khjmt0kegnil19dd6@4ax.com
[snip]
> If you want to jump when some stupid wiz kid decides
> something will be good for us that is your choice I will
> make my own mind up if something is advantageous to me or
> not and having to remember 020 instead of 0207 ISN'T .
> NOW FOAD .
Having to remember one digit less is more trouble..?
Ivor Jones wrote:
> <Dexter@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:uh2ok1t2g0i2k2ug5khjmt0kegnil19dd6@4ax.com
>
> [snip]
>
> > If you want to jump when some stupid wiz kid decides
> > something will be good for us that is your choice I will
> > make my own mind up if something is advantageous to me or
> > not and having to remember 020 instead of 0207 ISN'T .
> > NOW FOAD .
>
> Having to remember one digit less is more trouble..?
>
> Strange....
>
> Ivor
Ivor,
One admires your tenacity. But why persist? This guy just doesn't get
it. Frankly, were ignorance music, Dex would be his own brass band.
Don't try to teach a pig to sing. It will frustrate you. And, it
annoys the pig.
Let's move on. We are in exciting times for communications. There is
plenty of intelligent material to discuss.
Re: London Geographic Number 
Linear Mode
