BT CS - 0207 nnn nnnn frustration

METWO

?
"Richard M Willis" <mythreeinitials@mydomain.co.uuk> wrote in message
news:46defa34$0$29248$88260bb3@free.teranews.com.. .
> Mark Evans wrote:
>
>>
>> This idea came with its own insanity in that the "area" when it comes to
>> dialing did not correspond with the area when it comes to call charging.
>> Meaning that either you could be charged at different rates for dialing
>> two "local" numbers or that you'd have to dial 11 digits for an
>> apparently local number.
>
> But surely no-one is paying differentially for "local" and "long distance"
> any more. It costs the same to call London->Scotland, as it does to call
> next door, surely ?
>
> I remember this business with Portsmouth/Southampton (023).
>
> Richard [in PE12]
>
> --
> Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
>

Richard M Willis

Mark Evans wrote:
> Ivor Jones <ivor@despammed.invalid> wrote:
>
>> If we had uniform local number lengths like the US it would be easy.
>
> The problem with a uniform local number length is that you can easily
> end up a number shortage in densely populated areas (having multiple
> area codes for one city/distinct part of a city is hardly ideal) at the
> same time you are likely to end up with areas with more numbers than
> can ever possibly be used.

We could still have uniform number lengths but do away with area codes
altogether: just have numbers sequentially allocated from (say)
040000000000 to 049999999999 or whatever. After a while, the 04 prefix
could be dropped, perhaps.

I can't see the point in having a "town" prefix in this age of mobiles,
Skype, 09, personal numbers etc. Phone numbers should relate to people
(or groups of people) rather than locations.

If PGS were still here, he'd have a fit.

Richard [in PE12]

>

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

Richard M Willis

Mark Evans wrote:
> Richard M Willis <mythreeinitials@mydomain.co.uuk> wrote:
>> alexd wrote:
>
>>> Interesting. I wasn't aware that formatting information was sent with the
>>> number in CLI. Are you referring to POTS or ISDN?
>>>
>> Formatting of numbers is provided by the terminating exchange (with
>> POTS, anyway). CC7 provides (I think) only for sending digits (no
>> punctuation). Different terminating exchanges will inevitably be
>> programmed with different formatting tables.
>
> Also some devices with simply ignore anything which isn't a digit when
> it comes to displaying/storing the data supplied to them.
>
This would be a bit of a bugger if partial CLI were ever sent. There was
once a suggestion that a call from say, Milton Keynes, be presented as
e.g. 01908-66- (i.e. a terminating hyphen)

Richard [in PE12]

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

Ivor Jones

"Richard M Willis" <mythreeinitials@mydomain.co.uuk> wrote
in message news:46defa34$0$29248$88260bb3@free.teranews.com
: : Mark Evans wrote:
: :
: : :
: : : This idea came with its own insanity in that the
: : : "area" when it comes to dialing did not correspond
: : : with the area when it comes to call charging. Meaning
: : : that either you could be charged at different rates
: : : for dialing two "local" numbers or that you'd have to
: : : dial 11 digits for an apparently local number.
: :
: : But surely no-one is paying differentially for "local"
: : and "long distance" any more. It costs the same to call
: : London->Scotland, as it does to call next door, surely ?

On most residential tariffs, yes. I believe business rates are different,
but at most businesses I've worked at, the phone costs seem a side issue,
nobody thinks about them as they're not paying the bill. For example in my
office I have what is effectively a direct line (BT Featurenet) and I can
dial anywhere, nobody has ever questioned the calls I've made and I don't
know anyone else in the company who has had their phone use checked
either. In fact there is only one phone I know of on the company system
that has outside calls blocked and that's because it's located in an area
accessible to the public.

Ivor

Tim Clark

In article <5k8q6pF2mf7mU1@mid.individual.net>,
"Ivor Jones" <ivor@despammed.invalid> writes:
> "Richard M Willis" <mythreeinitials@mydomain.co.uuk> wrote
> in message news:46defa34$0$29248$88260bb3@free.teranews.com
>: : Mark Evans wrote:
>: : :
>: : : This idea came with its own insanity in that the
>: : : "area" when it comes to dialing did not correspond
>: : : with the area when it comes to call charging. Meaning
>: : : that either you could be charged at different rates
>: : : for dialing two "local" numbers or that you'd have to
>: : : dial 11 digits for an apparently local number.
>: :
>: : But surely no-one is paying differentially for "local"
>: : and "long distance" any more. It costs the same to call
>: : London->Scotland, as it does to call next door, surely ?
>
> On most residential tariffs, yes. I believe business rates are different,

The postal service achieved it in 1840 with the introduction of the
"penny post" - same cost to have a standard letter delivered
London->Scotalnd, as it did to have it delivered next door. The telephone
system has very nearly caught up.

--
Tim Clark