Looking for a large mobile phone?

[MrTomServo]

Continued from this thread at TV Forum.

[Gavin Scott]

In 2000 (or thereabouts) these prefixes were replaced by 0208 and 0207 respectively. If you consider the London STD code to be just "020" (which IMO looks stupid) then Londoners have to add 8 or 7 to
their local phone numbers, depending on the part of London they're in.

Thats the bit that annoys me. 020 does look stupid comapred to the rest of the UK codes.

Am I not right in thinking that the nationwide '01' prefix change was designed to make extra numbers available, but didn't? If you think about it, it makes no sense whatsoever.

[Larry Scutta]

The 0207, 0208 thing in the o2 tariffs is a legacy thing. Both o2 and Vodaphone used to charge calls depending on geographical location. On older phones the dialling code of the area you were in was displayed on the screen. Of course it does mean that o2 customers who choose 020 7 and 020 8 as their 2 codes do actually get 1 thing for the price of 2.... not a great deal.

The 020 thing is a very common misconception. Especially annoying when I quote numbers down the phone to someone else in London I'll always omit it, but then the person at the other end reads it back with 0207 on the front.... so we start again.

It's not a difficult concept, especially for those of us who remember '01 for London'

[Larry Scutta]

Am I not right in thinking that the nationwide '01' prefix change was designed to make extra numbers available, but didn't? If you think about it, it makes no sense whatsoever.

Yes it does, If they didn't add the digit 1 to the front of all numbers then we wouldn't have been able to expand to numbers beginning with 02 (and in the future 03, 04 etc)

The problem is that there are plenty of spare numbers availiable, but in the UK the numbers are quite strictly geographic.... so all the availiable numbers are in the wrong place. So a rural area with a small population has a whole dialling code to itself and doesn't use half of its numbers.... but then there are urban areas with their own code with a big population that are running out of numbers. Spare numbers from the rural area can't be redistributed to the urban area

[dvboy]

I suppose the greatest advantage the introduction of 02 codes has been in Northern Ireland where there's now one (028) code for the whole of NI, but all numbers are 8 digits long so if you're dialling within NI, you only have 8 digits to dial where before it could have been 10 or 11.

Also, Portsmouth and Southampton now have the same code, (023), so calls between the cities are now local calls.

However, with the introduction of newer number that don't match others in the area that were converted by a prefix, it will be come less easier to pinpoint a code to an exact location. For example, (01861) was Armagh which became (028) 38-, but (028) numbers staring with other digits could be introduced in Armagh now and (028) 38- numbers could (though probably wouldn't) be assigned elsewhere in NI.

Going back further, the idea of the 01 code change in 1994 was to differenciate geographical numbers from non-geographical numbers while freeing up loads of codes in the process for the future. For example, (0207) Consett and (0208) Bodmin became (01207) and (01208) which paved the way for the (020) code to replace (0171) and (0181) and give London nearly 70,000,000 new numbers.

At the same time as the 02 introduction, all the non-geographical numbers that weren't 07 (mobile), 08 (special rate) and 09 (premium rate) codes were changed also, with the idea that the code makes it easier to work out what type of number you're calling.

[Gavin Scott]

Am I not right in thinking that the nationwide '01' prefix change was designed to make extra numbers available, but didn't? If you think about it, it makes no sense whatsoever.

Yes it does, If they didn't add the digit 1 to the front of all numbers then we wouldn't have been able to expand to numbers beginning with 02 (and in the future 03, 04 etc)

The vast majority of existing geographic codes remained intact except for the additional 1, (more or less everywhere except London), so to us at least there was no benefit at all. That's how it was perceived here anyway.

I found this on a quick google:

One of London’s most potent symbols was always the 01 phone prefix. In line with its national status, London took the premier easiest-to-remember code, and the rest of the country put up with the leftovers. For example, Consett in County Durham took the insignificant 0207 prefix, while Bodmin in Cornwall was lumbered with 0208.

Then in the 1990s came an explosion of fax machines, second- third and fourth- phone lines, particularly in the capital. This forced an expansion of the phone numbering system, brilliantly mismanaged by OFTEL. They first assured Londoners that a split into 071 and 081 areas would be perfectly sufficient, then that the less-than-memorable 0171 and 0181 codes were urgently required, and finally that 0207 and 0208 were absolutely necessary.

Londoners have needed new stationery three times in ten years, and many businesses around the capital still have out-of-date phone numbers engraved prominently on their shop-fronts. Meanwhile in Consett and Bodmin, the behind-the-times shops now display current London numbers.

[dvboy]

Meanwhile in Consett and Bodmin, the behind-the-times shops now display current London numbers.

Not really, since they'd be a digit short.

[Fireboy]

Meanwhile in Consett and Bodmin, the behind-the-times shops now display current London numbers.

Not really, since they'd be a digit short.

Apparently some numbers did have 7 digits - although I'd guess they would have changed to 6 by now.

[Larry Scutta]

Am I not right in thinking that the nationwide '01' prefix change was designed to make extra numbers available, but didn't? If you think about it, it makes no sense whatsoever.

Yes it does, If they didn't add the digit 1 to the front of all numbers then we wouldn't have been able to expand to numbers beginning with 02 (and in the future 03, 04 etc)

The vast majority of existing geographic codes remained intact except for the additional 1, (more or less everywhere except London), so to us at least there was no benefit at all. That's how it was perceived here anyway.

Yes there was a benefit because before all phone numbers started 01, 02, 03, 04 etc. The numbers were running out and it was bit messy: you had mobiles starting 07 and 04, you had 0500 and 0800, 0345 and 0845 etc

The extra digit created many millions of potential new numbers all of which are catergorised: 'normal' (i.e. land lines) start 01, 02 (and soon 03, 04 05), mobiles start 07, special rate services 08, premium 09.

[MrTomServo]

Lord, with all those zeroes, be glad we all don't have rotary-dial telephones anymore.

Oh wait, I do. Shit.

[dvboy]

Lord, with all those zeroes, be glad we all don't have rotary-dial telephones anymore.

Oh wait, I do. Shit.

But North America doesn't use a prefix on their dialling codes like most of the rest of the world (0 in most cases, 9 in a few like Spain) so it doesn't matter to you!

I'm surprised you don't use it, though. The 0's quite useful in differenciating a local number from a national number, and of course, before they all started 01, it freed up all the local numbers that start with the same digits as a code so you could have numbers such as (0246) 246246 which would be impossible without the O because you'd get as far as (246) 246 and be connected to 246246 in your own town.

Anyone remember the days of local codes that you could use instead of the STD code for nearby areas? For example calling a Wolverhampton number from Birmingham, you could dial the prefix 5, instead of the 01902 you have to dial now.

http://www.telephonesuk.co.uk/old_dialing_codes.htm