|
Home > Archive > Voice Over IP in UK > March 2007 > 03 numbers
You are viewing an archived Text-only version of the thread.
To view this thread in it's original format and/or if you want to reply to
this thread please [click here]
|
|
|
|
| pugwash 2007-03-13, 7:11 pm |
| I thought 03 is geographical, not VoIP. Do you mean 05?
"{{{{{Welcome}}}}}" <bhx___spam@trapped___hotmail.co.uk> wrote in message
news:KyEJh.4761$DX5.374@text.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
> Are there any VoIP providers issuing numbers in the 03 range yet?
>
>
> --
> 60 day free DVD rental: www.southeastbirmingham.co.uk/dvd
> Mobile Offers: www.southeastbirmingham.co.uk/mob
| |
| {{{{{Welcome}}}}} 2007-03-13, 7:11 pm |
| pugwash wrote:[vbcol=seagreen]
> I thought 03 is geographical, not VoIP. Do you mean 05?
>
>
> "{{{{{Welcome}}}}}" <bhx___spam@trapped___hotmail.co.uk> wrote in
> message news:KyEJh.4761$DX5.374@text.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
No, I did mean 03.
I have 01 and 02 VoIP numbers, but I'd like an 03 number for other use,
these are the new non-geographic numbers, charged at the same rate as a
geo.
| |
| Graham 2007-03-13, 7:11 pm |
|
"pugwash" <nobody> wrote in message
news:JoOdnUergrLui2rYnZ2dnUVZ8tSdnZ2d@bt
.com...
>I thought 03 is geographical, not VoIP. Do you mean 05?
All my VOIP numbers are 01 and 02
I have offices in London, Manchester, Cardiff, Edinburgh, and New York
(or so it might seem to someone calling me).
--
Graham.
%Profound_observation%
| |
| clavox@btinternet.com 2007-03-13, 7:11 pm |
| On Tue, 13 Mar 2007 21:31:23 GMT, "{{{{{Welcome}}}}}"
<bhx___spam@trapped___hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
>pugwash wrote:
>
>
>No, I did mean 03.
>
>I have 01 and 02 VoIP numbers, but I'd like an 03 number for other use,
>these are the new non-geographic numbers, charged at the same rate as a
>geo.
Have a word with the manager of Sipgate's UK division he may be able
to arrange one for you .
| |
| Paul Cupis 2007-03-13, 7:11 pm |
| {{{{{Welcome}}}}} wrote:
> Are there any VoIP providers issuing numbers in the 03 range yet?
No, as Ofcom have not allocated any to any operators yet. Last week was
the initial application stage, so I'd expect numbers to become available
to endusers in 2-3 months.
| |
| Paul Cupis 2007-03-13, 7:11 pm |
| pugwash wrote:
> I thought 03 is geographical, not VoIP. Do you mean 05?
03 is non-geographical, but charged at geographic rates.
| |
| clavox@btinternet.com 2007-03-13, 7:11 pm |
| On Tue, 13 Mar 2007 23:56:05 +0000, Paul Cupis <paul@cupis.co.uk>
wrote:
>pugwash wrote:
>
>03 is non-geographical, but charged at geographic rates.
In that case you will not catch me dialing any .
| |
| Ivor Jones 2007-03-14, 1:11 am |
| <clavox@btinternet.com> wrote in message
news:h6fev29gssuf5b79gr87l3kfimv1kq9rp8@
4ax.com
> On Tue, 13 Mar 2007 23:56:05 +0000, Paul Cupis
> <paul@cupis.co.uk> wrote:
>
[vbcol=seagreen]
> In that case you will not catch me dialing any .
Why not..? They are/will be charged at exactly the same rate as 01/02
numbers.
Ivor
| |
| {{{{{Welcome}}}}} 2007-03-14, 1:11 am |
| Paul Cupis wrote:
> {{{{{Welcome}}}}} wrote:
>
> No, as Ofcom have not allocated any to any operators yet. Last week
> was the initial application stage, so I'd expect numbers to become
> available to endusers in 2-3 months.
Right, OK thanks!
| |
| Paul Cupis 2007-03-14, 1:11 am |
| clavox@btinternet.com wrote:
> On Tue, 13 Mar 2007 23:56:05 +0000, Paul Cupis <paul@cupis.co.uk>
> wrote:
>
> In that case you will not catch me dialing any .
Why not, dare I ask?
| |
| Gordon Henderson 2007-03-14, 1:11 pm |
| In article <45f740e9.0@entanet>, Paul Cupis <paul@cupis.co.uk> wrote:
>pugwash wrote:
>
>03 is non-geographical, but charged at geographic rates.
And were'nt 056 numbers suppsoed to be the same way too? Whatever happened
to them?
Gordon
| |
| Brian A 2007-03-14, 1:11 pm |
| On Wed, 14 Mar 2007 00:34:10 GMT, "{{{{{Welcome}}}}}"
<bhx___spam@trapped___hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
>Paul Cupis wrote:
>
>Right, OK thanks!
The old non-geo 0345 numbers are current 'Lo-call' aren't they ? -
like 0845s ?
Some of the water companies such as 'Yorkshire Water' still use them
for example.
OfWat themselves have 0345 581658
Remove 'no_spam_' from email address.
| |
| Adrian 2007-03-14, 1:11 pm |
| On Mar 13, 5:34 pm, "{{{{{Welcome}}}}}"
<bhx___spam@trapped___hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
> Paul Cupis wrote:
>
>
> Right, OK thanks!
So what happen when Ofcom runs out of '02*' numbers for geographic
areas?
Let me explain: My understanding is that '01nnn' is a temporary
measure. Eventually Wales will all become 029, Scotland will have 2
'02*' areas and the English regions will be converted to two digit
area codes with 8 digit numbers. However, there are not enough '02*'
codes to cover all the English regions. One would have expected after
using all the '02*' options that usage would overflow to take insome
'03*' codes.
Since '03*' is now going to be utilized for non geopgraphic numbers,
from where will the new area codes for 8 digit numbers come?
Adrian
| |
| Spin Dryer 2007-03-14, 7:11 pm |
| On 14 Mar 2007 09:55:45 -0700, [Adrian] said :-
>On Mar 13, 5:34 pm, "{{{{{Welcome}}}}}"
><bhx___spam@trapped___hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
>
>So what happen when Ofcom runs out of '02*' numbers for geographic
>areas?
>
>Let me explain: My understanding is that '01nnn' is a temporary
>measure. Eventually Wales will all become 029, Scotland will have 2
>'02*' areas and the English regions will be converted to two digit
>area codes with 8 digit numbers. However, there are not enough '02*'
>codes to cover all the English regions. One would have expected after
>using all the '02*' options that usage would overflow to take insome
>'03*' codes.
>
>Since '03*' is now going to be utilized for non geopgraphic numbers,
>from where will the new area codes for 8 digit numbers come?
>
>Adrian
What does someone posting from Nevada Power company in the US know
about this ? Let me tell you, absolutely nothing.
| |
| Adrian 2007-03-14, 7:11 pm |
| On Mar 14, 11:17 am, Spin Dryer <m...@privacy.net> wrote:
> On 14 Mar 2007 09:55:45 -0700, [Adrian] said :-
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> What does someone posting from Nevada Power company in the US know
> about this ? Let me tell you, absolutely nothing.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Well thank you for that lucid and helpful reply Electricky Dicky, err
Bart Bailey, Massimo, Stefan L, Mister Bartlett, GoNads, or whatever
naming you are trolling under today.
<Plonk!>
| |
| Graham 2007-03-14, 7:11 pm |
|
"Brian A" <no_spam_bca1000@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:rf4gv2dkhqmct2qcmto866dgbldhvffom4@
4ax.com...
> On Wed, 14 Mar 2007 00:34:10 GMT, "{{{{{Welcome}}}}}"
> <bhx___spam@trapped___hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
>
> The old non-geo 0345 numbers are current 'Lo-call' aren't they ? -
> like 0845s ?
> Some of the water companies such as 'Yorkshire Water' still use them
> for example.
> OfWat themselves have 0345 581658
> Remove 'no_spam_' from email address.
0345 finished years ago.
Looking at the OfWat website, all their numbers are 0121,
not a non-geo in sight. Well done OfWat!
--
Graham.
%Profound_observation%
| |
| stephen 2007-03-14, 7:11 pm |
| "Paul Cupis" <paul@cupis.co.uk> wrote in message news:45f740b7.0@entanet...
> {{{{{Welcome}}}}} wrote:
>
> No, as Ofcom have not allocated any to any operators yet. Last week was
> the initial application stage, so I'd expect numbers to become available
> to endusers in 2-3 months.
in effect - some numbers are already allocated.
the Ofcom page mentions that some numbers are reserved, so that companies
already using 08xx can get an equivalent 03 number where all they do is
change 8 -> 3.
See 1.17 in
http://www.ofcom.org.uk/consult/con...ring03/summary/
--
Regards
stephen_hope@xyzworld.com - replace xyz with ntl
| |
| R. Mark Clayton 2007-03-14, 7:11 pm |
|
"Spin Dryer" <me2@privacy.net> wrote in message
news:1segv2drv1ap1067nff4vkqbrhskc3pi51@
4ax.com...
> On 14 Mar 2007 09:55:45 -0700, [Adrian] said :-
>
>
> What does someone posting from Nevada Power company in the US know
> about this ? Let me tell you, absolutely nothing.
Have a look at what he responded to!
Well the North American Numbering Plan was devised about 60 years ago and
whilst some new area codes have been added and the central digit of the area
code can now be other than zero or one, it has lasted well down to today.
In the UK we have had area codes based on exchange names, then all number
and at least two major renumbering schemes for London in the last twenty
years. Large parts of the rest of the country has been radically changed as
well.
So what does anyone in the US know about number plans - a lot more than
anyone in the UK!
| |
| Martin Jay 2007-03-14, 7:11 pm |
| In message <1173891345.126819.37880@e65g2000hsc.googlegroups.com>,
Adrian <adrian_h_hudson@yahoo.com> writes
>On Mar 13, 5:34 pm, "{{{{{Welcome}}}}}"
><bhx___spam@trapped___hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
>
>So what happen when Ofcom runs out of '02*' numbers for geographic
>areas?
That's probably not very likely. There seems to be a trend against
using geographic numbers amongst businesses and that will probably be
mirrored by residential users sometime.
Now that the majority of UK call charges are not based on distance there
isn't really much incentive to strictly assign areas of the country
specific dialling codes. Many customers would probably like to take
their current phone number with them when they move.
>Let me explain: My understanding is that '01nnn' is a temporary
>measure. Eventually Wales will all become 029, Scotland will have 2
>'02*' areas and the English regions will be converted to two digit
>area codes with 8 digit numbers.
IIRC this idea was mooted by OFTEL some time ago, and Northern Ireland
already follows this system by only having one dialling code.
But customers are unhappy about having their numbers changed (again), so
I think the idea was put on ice.
--
Martin Jay
Phone/SMS: +44 7740 191877
| |
| Paul Cupis 2007-03-14, 7:11 pm |
| Adrian wrote:
> So what happen when Ofcom runs out of '02*' numbers for geographic
> areas?
>
> Let me explain: My understanding is that '01nnn' is a temporary
> measure. Eventually Wales will all become 029, Scotland will have 2
> '02*' areas and the English regions will be converted to two digit
> area codes with 8 digit numbers. However, there are not enough '02*'
> codes to cover all the English regions. One would have expected after
> using all the '02*' options that usage would overflow to take insome
> '03*' codes.
>
> Since '03*' is now going to be utilized for non geopgraphic numbers,
> from where will the new area codes for 8 digit numbers come?
I'm not sure I understand your question. You are asking what numbers
will be used when all 01 numbers have been migrated to 02 area codes? If
this is your question, surely they can just re-use the 01 numbers? If
not, can you restate your question?
| |
| Adrian 2007-03-14, 7:11 pm |
| On Mar 14, 2:13 pm, Paul Cupis <p...@cupis.co.uk> wrote:
> Adrian wrote:
>
>
>
> I'm not sure I understand your question. You are asking what numbers
> will be used when all 01 numbers have been migrated to 02 area codes? If
> this is your question, surely they can just re-use the 01 numbers? If
> not, can you restate your question?
Yes Paul,
Essentially, I am assuming that in the very long term "011n", "01n1",
and "01nnn" will cease to exist as the need for numbers pushes the
conversion to "02n". However, there are not quite enough
possibilities with just "02n". If "01n" is re-used I guess it will
work.
Adrian
| |
| Adrian 2007-03-14, 7:11 pm |
| On Mar 14, 1:46 pm, "R. Mark Clayton" <nospamclay...@btinternet.com>
wrote:
> "Spin Dryer" <m...@privacy.net> wrote in message
>
> news:1segv2drv1ap1067nff4vkqbrhskc3pi51@
4ax.com...
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Have a look at what he responded to!
>
> Well the North American Numbering Plan was devised about 60 years ago and
> whilst some new area codes have been added and the central digit of the area
> code can now be other than zero or one, it has lasted well down to today.
>
> In the UK we have had area codes based on exchange names, then all number
> and at least two major renumbering schemes for London in the last twenty
> years. Large parts of the rest of the country has been radically changed as
> well.
>
> So what does anyone in the US know about number plans - a lot more than
> anyone in the UK!
Thank you Mark,
In point of fact I grew up in an English village. My parents had a
three digit telephone number. I have had numbers in London,
Basingstoke, Bognor Regis, Bradford, Edinburgh and currently
Portsmouth. So I am used to the UK's "evolutionary" approach. :-)
Then again I have had numbers in Louisville, Westborough,
Massachusetts, Omaha, and currently Las Vegas and Los Angeles. So I
am familiar with the North American "fixed length" approach.
Adrian
| |
| Paul Cupis 2007-03-14, 7:11 pm |
| Gordon Henderson wrote:
> In article <45f740e9.0@entanet>, Paul Cupis <paul@cupis.co.uk> wrote:
>
> And were'nt 056 numbers suppsoed to be the same way too? Whatever happened
> to them?
056 numbers are "LIECS" - Location Independant Electronic Communcations
Service. These are intended, loosely, for VoIP services, where 03
numbers are not.
| |
| Paul Cupis 2007-03-14, 7:11 pm |
| Brian A wrote:
> On Wed, 14 Mar 2007 00:34:10 GMT, "{{{{{Welcome}}}}}"
> <bhx___spam@trapped___hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
> The old non-geo 0345 numbers are current 'Lo-call' aren't they ? -
> like 0845s ?
Remaining 0345 numbers were all converted to "08457" numbers in 2001.
| |
| Paul Cupis 2007-03-14, 7:11 pm |
| stephen wrote:
> "Paul Cupis" <paul@cupis.co.uk> wrote in message news:45f740b7.0@entanet...
>
> in effect - some numbers are already allocated.
>
> the Ofcom page mentions that some numbers are reserved, so that companies
> already using 08xx can get an equivalent 03 number where all they do is
> change 8 -> 3.
>
> See 1.17 in
> http://www.ofcom.org.uk/consult/con...ring03/summary/
Well, yes. I would consider these reserved, rather than allocated.
Certainly they are not yet available to dial/acquire.
| |
|
| Martin Jay wrote:
> That's probably not very likely. There seems to be a trend against
> using geographic numbers amongst businesses and that will probably be
> mirrored by residential users sometime.
Also, the reduction in fax lines, 2nd lines for broadband use, and
Home/Business Highway is going to release some numbers.
Owain
| |
|
| On Wed, 14 Mar 2007 20:48:39 +0000, Martin Jay
<martin@spam-free.org.uk> wrote:
>
>IIRC this idea was mooted by OFTEL some time ago, and Northern Ireland
>already follows this system by only having one dialling code.
In fact prior to the adoption of one dialling code for NI, Wales was
consulted about having only one code - 029 - the current Cardiff code.
Nobody knows who exactly was consulted, but I know no one who was
asked - the result - no single code, no chance of only one number
change - chaos kept in reserve for the future.
--
Cheers
Peter
Please remove the invalid to reply
| |
| NoNeedToKnow 2007-03-15, 7:11 am |
| On 14 Mar 2007, "Adrian" <adrian_h_hudson@yahoo.com> wrote:
>Let me explain: My understanding is that '01nnn' is a temporary
>measure. Eventually Wales will all become 029, Scotland will have 2
>'02*' areas and the English regions will be converted to two digit
>area codes with 8 digit numbers. However, there are not enough '02*'
>codes to cover all the English regions. One would have expected after
>using all the '02*' options that usage would overflow to take insome
>'03*' codes.
>Since '03*' is now going to be utilized for non geopgraphic numbers,
>from where will the new area codes for 8 digit numbers come?
OK, so 029 covers Wales, 028 for N Ireland, a couple for Scotland 027/6?
and that leaves 020/021/022/023/024/025 for England (my guess, not fact)
Now, you're working on the assumption that the 021-025 codes won't allow
for enough numbers, but seem to be forgetting that having "freed up" the
many 01xxx numbers (already done in N Ireland, would happen in Wales and
Scotland) and assuming the bigger cities (011x and 01x1) in England will
still not have converted to 02x, it still leaves a lot of scope for 01x
codes to be used.
I don't know if the 03* codes will be primarily for business (that had
been part of a plan some years back, I think), or only for bigger firms
with offices across the country, but we've been coping fairly well since
we have had 01/02 and 03 provides a major space for additions, while this
transfer to 02x numbers will be done over time. I don't know of reports
of "number shortage" and speedy switches to 02x from 01xxx being planned
but must admit the changes sometimes take a while to become clear (eg
the 01 -> 071/081 -> 0171/0181 -> 020 Xxxx {X=3/7/8} change).
| |
| NoNeedToKnow 2007-03-15, 7:11 am |
| On 14 Mar 2007, Spin Dryer <me2@privacy.net> wrote:
>What does someone posting from Nevada Power company in the US know
>about this ?
Seemed a valid question, wherever the posting originated. Have you
anything constructive to add (no, don't bother answering that, I
am probably out on a limb, for posting via motzarella.org !)
| |
| Adrian 2007-03-15, 1:11 pm |
| On Mar 15, 12:13 am, NoNeedToKnow <m...@privacy.net.invalid> wrote:
> On 14 Mar 2007, "Adrian" <adrian_h_hud...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
> OK, so 029 covers Wales, 028 for N Ireland, a couple for Scotland 027/6?
> and that leaves 020/021/022/023/024/025 for England (my guess, not fact)
>
> Now, you're working on the assumption that the 021-025 codes won't allow
> for enough numbers, but seem to be forgetting that having "freed up" the
> many 01xxx numbers (already done in N Ireland, would happen in Wales and
> Scotland) and assuming the bigger cities (011x and 01x1) in England will
> still not have converted to 02x, it still leaves a lot of scope for 01x
> codes to be used.
>
> I don't know if the 03* codes will be primarily for business (that had
> been part of a plan some years back, I think), or only for bigger firms
> with offices across the country, but we've been coping fairly well since
> we have had 01/02 and 03 provides a major space for additions, while this
> transfer to 02x numbers will be done over time. I don't know of reports
> of "number shortage" and speedy switches to 02x from 01xxx being planned
> but must admit the changes sometimes take a while to become clear (eg
> the 01 -> 071/081 -> 0171/0181 -> 020 Xxxx {X=3/7/8} change).
The last I heard was that any move to "02n" would only happen as "01*"
areas run at of numbers. The rush to convert the UK was dropped in
the wake of public dislike for change perceived as unnecessary.
Adrian
| |
| Adrian 2007-03-15, 1:11 pm |
| On Mar 15, 12:13 am, NoNeedToKnow <m...@privacy.net.invalid> wrote:
> On 14 Mar 2007, "Adrian" <adrian_h_hud...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
> OK, so 029 covers Wales, 028 for N Ireland, a couple for Scotland 027/6?
> and that leaves 020/021/022/023/024/025 for England (my guess, not fact)
>
> Now, you're working on the assumption that the 021-025 codes won't allow
> for enough numbers, but seem to be forgetting that having "freed up" the
> many 01xxx numbers (already done in N Ireland, would happen in Wales and
> Scotland) and assuming the bigger cities (011x and 01x1) in England will
> still not have converted to 02x, it still leaves a lot of scope for 01x
> codes to be used.
>
> I don't know if the 03* codes will be primarily for business (that had
> been part of a plan some years back, I think), or only for bigger firms
> with offices across the country, but we've been coping fairly well since
> we have had 01/02 and 03 provides a major space for additions, while this
> transfer to 02x numbers will be done over time. I don't know of reports
> of "number shortage" and speedy switches to 02x from 01xxx being planned
> but must admit the changes sometimes take a while to become clear (eg
> the 01 -> 071/081 -> 0171/0181 -> 020 Xxxx {X=3/7/8} change).
Thank you,
That was thoughtful and constructive. We don't know what Ofcom will
anounce in the future. But it is informative to understand the need
and the possible solutions.
Adrian
| |
| Spin Dryer 2007-03-15, 7:11 pm |
| On Wed, 14 Mar 2007 20:46:46 -0000, [R. Mark Clayton] said :-
>
>"Spin Dryer" <me2@privacy.net> wrote in message
> news:1segv2drv1ap1067nff4vkqbrhskc3pi51@
4ax.com...
>
>Have a look at what he responded to!
>
>Well the North American Numbering Plan was devised about 60 years ago and
>whilst some new area codes have been added and the central digit of the area
>code can now be other than zero or one, it has lasted well down to today.
>
>In the UK we have had area codes based on exchange names, then all number
>and at least two major renumbering schemes for London in the last twenty
>years. Large parts of the rest of the country has been radically changed as
>well.
>
>So what does anyone in the US know about number plans - a lot more than
>anyone in the UK!
>
Really ?
You think this person actually knows what is going to happen ? Are you
part of OFCOM or BT ?
"Adrian" implies that he know what is going to happen, is he part of
OFCOM ?, does he know anyone in OFCOM ?
Unless he does, then he should have said 'this is what I believe
should happen", not what will happen.
You do see the difference here don't you ?
Adrian is no more an authority on UK numbering than my pet tortoise.
| |
|
| On Mar 15, 10:08 pm, Spin Dryer <m...@privacy.net> wrote:
> On Wed, 14 Mar 2007 20:46:46 -0000, [R. Mark Clayton] said :-
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Really ?
>
> You think this person actually knows what is going to happen ? Are you
> part of OFCOM or BT ?
>
> "Adrian" implies that he know what is going to happen, is he part of
> OFCOM ?, does he know anyone in OFCOM ?
>
> Unless he does, then he should have said 'this is what I believe
> should happen", not what will happen.
>
> You do see the difference here don't you ?
>
> Adrian is no more an authority on UK numbering than my pet tortoise
or on ways to get cheap calls forwarded to America - posted in a forum
about VoIP, that looks incongruous to me
| |
| Jeremy Porteous 2007-03-16, 7:11 pm |
| "NoNeedToKnow" <me@privacy.net.invalid> wrote in message
news:bvrhv2tagf8r43ehs9qtjfas452ddig8ve@
complete-pc-services.info...
> On 14 Mar 2007, "Adrian" <adrian_h_hudson@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
[...][vbcol=seagreen]
> OK, so 029 covers Wales, 028 for N Ireland, a couple for Scotland 027/6?
> and that leaves 020/021/022/023/024/025 for England (my guess, not fact)
Sorry for the long post but this may be of interest. Back in the late
1990s, there was speculation that the UK would be divided into 10 02X zones
and that 01XXX numbers would be migrated into this. To quote Clive Feather
from April 1999:
"I am told that the country has been divided into ten areas, and all
future code changes (e.g. Cambridge) will be to 8 figure numbers in the
appropriate 02X code. These areas are:
020 London charge area
021 south-west England
022 East Anglia [All Anglia]
023 southern England [Coast of England]
024 Midlands [the Bit In the middle]
025 Pennines belt [Both Lancs and yorks]
026 northern England [All North]
027 Scotland [All Scotland]
028 Northern Ireland [All Ulster]
029 Wales [All Wales]
[The bracket terms are mnemonics using the old letters on the dial.]"
Also in fact blocks in the allocation of many 01XXX dialling codes became
"Designated" and blocked to allocation and "Protected" in adjacent areas.
Someone cleverly worked out that this would allow the migration of 01XXX
codes into 02X codes (in the same way that Southampton and Portsmouth became
80... and 92...).
For example, quoting Rod Sladen from March 2000 regarding East Anglia (i.e.
the speculated 022):
"Recent changes in the Oftel Specified Numbering Scheme, dated 03/2000,
seem to be a prelude to a new numbering scheme for East Anglia:
"DE" digits have been designated in the following areas, and the same
"DE" digits have been "protected" in (almost) all adjacent areas, as
follows:
DE digits Area
20 01234 Bedford
21 01842 Thetford
22 01485 Docking
23 01553 Kings Lynn
24 ?
25 01366 Downham Market
26 01638 Newmarket
27 01760 Swaffham
28 01328 Fakenham
29 01708 Romford
30 01354 Doddington
31 01493 Great Yarmouth
32 01508 Brooke
33 01263 Cromer
34 01692 North Walsham
35 ?
36 01449 Stowmarket
37 01255 Clacton-on-Sea
38 01362 Dereham
39 01763 Royston
40 01284 Bury St.Edmunds
41 01462 Hitchin
42 ?
43 01353 Ely
44 ?
45 ?
46 ?
47 01799 Saffron Walden
48 01787 Sudbury
49 01992 Hoddesdon
50 ?
51 01767 Sudbury
52 01727 St.Albans
53 01954 Madingley
54 01438 Stevenage
55 ?
56 ?
57 01923 Watford
58 ?
59 01473 Ipswich
60 ?
61 01375 Grays Thurrock
62 01440 Haverhill
63 01359 Pakenham
64 01442 Hemel Hempstead
65 01376 Braintree
66 01480 Huntingdon
67 01920 Ware
68 ?
69 01525 Leighton Buzzard
70 ?
71 01945 Wisbech
72 01371 Great Dunmow
73 01487 Warboys
74 ?
75 01728 Saxmundham
76 01502 Lowestoft
77 01986 Bungay
78 ?
79 01223 Cambridge
80 (note that "80" has recently been "Designated" in (almost) all
areas of the UK)
81 01379 Diss
82 ?
83 01702 Southend-on Sea
84 01953 Attleborough
85 01733 Peterborough
86 ?
87 01394 Felixstowe
88 01621 Maldon
89 ?
90-98 have recently been "Designated" in (almost) all areas of the UK
where they were not previously so. This original reason for
"designating" 9x appears to been to allow future migration from 6-digit
to 7-digit numbers by prefixing with 9, but that has presumably been
overtaken by the intention to migrate to 8-digit numbers behind (02x)
area codes.
Lacking from this list are 01206 Colchester, 01245 Chelmsford, 01268
Basildon, 01277 Braintree, 01279 Bishops Stortford, 01406 Holbeach,
01494 High Wycombe, 01603 Norwich, 01604 Northampton, 01707 Potters
Bar, 01775 Spalding, 01778, 01780 Stamford, 01832 Oundle, 01895
Uxbridge, 01933 Wellingborough. I have have missed a few more!"
Similarly subsequent changes were made to cover South East/South England in
June 2000 (i.e. the speculated 023)
"A recent version of the Oftel Specified Numbering Scheme (issued 7 June
2000) paves the way for yet another round of number changes, this time
affecting the South East and South of England, and the Home Counties
(Oxford, Reading and the surrounding area).
It looks as if at least two separate numbering areas are involved, but
it is not easy to deduce the precise boundaries between them.
"DE" digits have been designated in the following areas, and the same
"DE" digits have been "protected" in adjacent areas):
DE Code Area
20 01342 East Grinstead
21 01825 Uckfield
22 01794 Romsey
23 ? ; 0118 Reading (for 3xx xxxx to move to 23xx xxxx?)
24 01420 Alton
25 01323 Eastbourne
26 01737 Redhill; 01628 Maidenhead
27 01256 Basingstoke
28 ?; 01295 Banbury
29 01444 Haywards Heath; 0118 Reading (for 9xx xxxx to move to 29xx
xxxx?)
30 01227 Canterbury
31 01306 Dorking; 01608 Chipping Norton
32 01730 Petersfield
33 ?
34 01435 Heathfield
35 01329 Fareham
36 01798 Pulborough @
37 (already reserved for Southampton expansion)
38 01895 Uxbridge
39 01932 Weybridge
40 01304 Dover
41 01580 Cranbrook; 01993 Witney
42 ?
43 01732 Sevenoaks
44 01233 Ashford
45 01962 Basingstoke
46 01489 Fareham
47 ?
48 01795 Sittingbourne
49 01483 Guildford; #
50 ?
51 01303 Folkestone
52 ?; 01869 Bicester
53 01264 Andover
54 ?
55 ?
56 01892 Tunbridge Wells
57 ?
58 ?
59 01243 Chichester; 01635 Newbury
60 01474 Gravesend
61 01883 Caterham
62 ?; 01488 Hungerford
63 01252 Aldershot
64 ?
65 01273 Brighton
66 01372 Esher
67 01959 Westerham
68 ?
69 01293 Crawley
70 01797 Rye; 01844 Thame
71 01983 Isle of Wight
72 01322 Dartford
73 ?
74 ?; 01491 Henley-on-Thames
75 01689 Orpington
76 ?
77 ?
78 ?
79 01425 Burley *; 01280 Buckingham
80 (already in use for Southampton); 01865 Oxford (#)
81 ?
82 01424 Hastings
83 01590 Lymington *; 01344 Bracknell
84 ?
85 ?
86 ?
87 ?
88 01843 Thanet
89 ?
90 01634 Medway; 01908 Milton Keynes
91 01622 Maidstone; 01296 Aylesbury
92 (already in use for Portsmouth); 01784 Staines
93 (already reserved for Portsmouth expansion); 01753 Slough
94 01903 Worthing
95 01276 Camberley; 01235 Abingdon
96 ?; 01367 Faringdon
97 01428 Haslemere *&* 01798 Pulborough @; 01494 High Wycombe
98 01403 Horsham
99 <not available>
@ In this case, it looks if the intention is to combine two adjacent
groups (01428 and 01798) on the same DE digits. The DE digits
currently "allocated" in each of these groups have been "protected" in
the other. However both DE digits "97" and DE digits "36" have been
"designated" in 01798.
# DE digits "49" were already designated in 01865 Oxford. This may
reflect a change of plan.
* If Bournemouth (DE digits "21" already designated) is *not* part of
the "south-east" area, then some other groups listed above (01425 and
01590, for instance) may belong in the same area as Bournemouth."
These designations were subsequently removed and have long since been
allocated so I imagine this plan (if there ever was one) died a quite death.
JP
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
| |
| Peter Gradwell 2007-03-16, 7:11 pm |
| {{{{{Welcome}}}}} wrote:
> Are there any VoIP providers issuing numbers in the 03 range yet?
>
>
there isn't anyone issuing 03 numbers yet. But we've all submitted our
initial applications to ofcom.
peter
--
peter gradwell. gradwell dot com Ltd. http://www.gradwell.com/
-- engineering & hosting services for email, web and voip --
-- http://www.peter.me.uk/ -- http://www.voip.org.uk/ --
| |
| Adrian 2007-03-16, 7:11 pm |
| On Mar 16, 10:30 am, "Jeremy Porteous"
<REMOVEjeremyporteousT...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> "NoNeedToKnow" <m...@privacy.net.invalid> wrote in message
>
> news:bvrhv2tagf8r43ehs9qtjfas452ddig8ve@
complete-pc-services.info...
>
>
> [...]
>
> Sorry for the long post but this may be of interest. Back in the late
> 1990s, there was speculation that the UK would be divided into 10 02X zones
> and that 01XXX numbers would be migrated into this. To quote Clive Feather
> from April 1999:
>
> "I am told that the country has been divided into ten areas, and all
> future code changes (e.g. Cambridge) will be to 8 figure numbers in the
> appropriate 02X code. These areas are:
>
> 020 London charge area
> 021 south-west England
> 022 East Anglia [All Anglia]
> 023 southern England [Coast of England]
> 024 Midlands [the Bit In the middle]
> 025 Pennines belt [Both Lancs and yorks]
> 026 northern England [All North]
> 027 Scotland [All Scotland]
> 028 Northern Ireland [All Ulster]
> 029 Wales [All Wales]
>
> [The bracket terms are mnemonics using the old letters on the dial.]"
>
> Also in fact blocks in the allocation of many 01XXX dialling codes became
> "Designated" and blocked to allocation and "Protected" in adjacent areas.
> Someone cleverly worked out that this would allow the migration of 01XXX
> codes into 02X codes (in the same way that Southampton and Portsmouth became
> 80... and 92...).
>
> For example, quoting Rod Sladen from March 2000 regarding East Anglia (i.e.
> the speculated 022):
>
> "Recent changes in the Oftel Specified Numbering Scheme, dated 03/2000,
> seem to be a prelude to a new numbering scheme for East Anglia:
>
> "DE" digits have been designated in the following areas, and the same
> "DE" digits have been "protected" in (almost) all adjacent areas, as
> follows:
>
> DE digits Area
> 20 01234 Bedford
> 21 01842 Thetford
> 22 01485 Docking
> 23 01553 Kings Lynn
> 24 ?
> 25 01366 Downham Market
> 26 01638 Newmarket
> 27 01760 Swaffham
> 28 01328 Fakenham
> 29 01708 Romford
> 30 01354 Doddington
> 31 01493 Great Yarmouth
> 32 01508 Brooke
> 33 01263 Cromer
> 34 01692 North Walsham
> 35 ?
> 36 01449 Stowmarket
> 37 01255 Clacton-on-Sea
> 38 01362 Dereham
> 39 01763 Royston
> 40 01284 Bury St.Edmunds
> 41 01462 Hitchin
> 42 ?
> 43 01353 Ely
> 44 ?
> 45 ?
> 46 ?
> 47 01799 Saffron Walden
> 48 01787 Sudbury
> 49 01992 Hoddesdon
> 50 ?
> 51 01767 Sudbury
> 52 01727 St.Albans
> 53 01954 Madingley
> 54 01438 Stevenage
> 55 ?
> 56 ?
> 57 01923 Watford
> 58 ?
> 59 01473 Ipswich
> 60 ?
> 61 01375 Grays Thurrock
> 62 01440 Haverhill
> 63 01359 Pakenham
> 64 01442 Hemel Hempstead
> 65 01376 Braintree
> 66 01480 Huntingdon
> 67 01920 Ware
> 68 ?
> 69 01525 Leighton Buzzard
> 70 ?
> 71 01945 Wisbech
> 72 01371 Great Dunmow
> 73 01487 Warboys
> 74 ?
> 75 01728 Saxmundham
> 76 01502 Lowestoft
> 77 01986 Bungay
> 78 ?
> 79 01223 Cambridge
> 80 (note that "80" has recently been "Designated" in (almost) all
> areas of the UK)
> 81 01379 Diss
> 82 ?
> 83 01702 Southend-on Sea
> 84 01953 Attleborough
> 85 01733 Peterborough
> 86 ?
> 87 01394 Felixstowe
> 88 01621 Maldon
> 89 ?
> 90-98 have recently been "Designated" in (almost) all areas of the UK
> where they were not previously so. This original reason for
> "designating" 9x appears to been to allow future migration from 6-digit
> to 7-digit numbers by prefixing with 9, but that has presumably been
> overtaken by the intention to migrate to 8-digit numbers behind (02x)
> area codes.
>
> Lacking from this list are 01206 Colchester, 01245 Chelmsford, 01268
> Basildon, 01277 Braintree, 01279 Bishops Stortford, 01406 Holbeach,
> 01494 High Wycombe, 01603 Norwich, 01604 Northampton, 01707 Potters
> Bar, 01775 Spalding, 01778, 01780 Stamford, 01832 Oundle, 01895
> Uxbridge, 01933 Wellingborough. I have have missed a few more!"
>
> Similarly subsequent changes were made to cover South East/South England in
> June 2000 (i.e. the speculated 023)
>
> "A recent version of the Oftel Specified Numbering Scheme (issued 7 June
> 2000) paves the way for yet another round of number changes, this time
> affecting the South East and South of England, and the Home Counties
> (Oxford, Reading and the surrounding area).
>
> It looks as if at least two separate numbering areas are involved, but
> it is not easy to deduce the precise boundaries between them.
>
> "DE" digits have been designated in the following areas, and the same
> "DE" digits have been "protected" in adjacent areas):
>
> DE Code Area
> 20 01342 East Grinstead
> 21 01825 Uckfield
> 22 01794 Romsey
> 23 ? ; 0118 Reading (for 3xx xxxx to move to 23xx xxxx?)
> 24 01420 Alton
> 25 01323 Eastbourne
> 26 01737 Redhill; 01628 Maidenhead
> 27 01256 Basingstoke
> 28 ?; 01295 Banbury
> 29 01444 Haywards Heath; 0118 Reading (for 9xx xxxx to move to 29xx
> xxxx?)
> 30 01227 Canterbury
> 31 01306 Dorking; 01608 Chipping Norton
> 32 01730 Petersfield
> 33 ?
> 34 01435 Heathfield
> 35 01329 Fareham
> 36 01798 Pulborough @
> 37 (already reserved for Southampton expansion)
> 38 01895 Uxbridge
> 39 01932 Weybridge
> 40 01304 Dover
> 41 01580 Cranbrook; 01993 Witney
> 42 ?
> 43 01732 Sevenoaks
> 44 01233 Ashford
> 45 01962 Basingstoke
> 46 01489 Fareham
> 47 ?
> 48 01795 Sittingbourne
> 49 01483 Guildford; #
> 50 ?
> 51 01303 Folkestone
> 52 ?; 01869 Bicester
> 53 01264 Andover
> 54 ?
> 55 ?
> 56 01892 Tunbridge Wells
> 57 ?
> 58 ?
> 59 01243 Chichester; 01635 Newbury
> 60 01474 Gravesend
> 61 01883 Caterham
> 62 ?; 01488 Hungerford
> 63 01252 Aldershot
> 64 ?
> 65 01273 Brighton
> 66 01372 Esher
> 67 01959 Westerham
> 68 ?
> 69 01293 Crawley
> 70 01797 Rye; 01844 Thame
> 71 01983 Isle of Wight
> 72 01322 Dartford
> 73 ?
> 74 ?; 01491 Henley-on-Thames
> 75 01689 Orpington
> 76 ?
> 77 ?
> 78 ?
> 79 01425 Burley *; 01280 Buckingham
> 80 (already in use for Southampton); 01865 Oxford (#)
> 81 ?
> 82 01424 Hastings
> 83 01590 Lymington *; 01344 Bracknell
> 84 ?
> 85 ?
> 86 ?
> 87 ?
> 88 01843 Thanet
> 89 ?
> 90 01634 Medway; 01908 Milton Keynes
> 91 01622 Maidstone; 01296 Aylesbury
> 92 (already in use for Portsmouth); 01784 Staines
> 93 (already reserved for Portsmouth expansion); 01753 Slough
> 94 01903 Worthing
> 95 01276 Camberley; 01235 Abingdon
> 96 ?; 01367 Faringdon
> 97 01428 Haslemere *&* 01798 Pulborough @; 01494 High Wycombe
> 98 01403 Horsham
> 99 <not available>
>
> @ In this case, it looks if the intention is to combine two adjacent
> groups (01428 and 01798) on the same DE digits. The DE digits
> currently "allocated" in each of these groups have been "protected" in
> the other. However both DE digits "97" and DE digits "36" have been
> "designated" in 01798.
>
> # DE digits "49" were already designated in 01865 Oxford. This may
> reflect a change of plan.
>
> * If Bournemouth (DE digits "21" already designated) is *not* part of
> the "south-east" area, then some other groups listed above (01425 and
> 01590, for instance) may belong in the same area as Bournemouth."
>
> These designations were subsequently removed and have long since been
> allocated so I imagine this plan (if there ever was one) died a quite death.
>
> JP
>
> --
> Posted via a free Usenet account fromhttp://www.teranews.com
Thank you Jeremy,
This confirms what I had read several years ago. And, from what you
are saying it seems to have been abandoned. This being the case,
there is a considerable spare numbering capacity for Cardiff! :-)
Adrian
| |
| Robin Fairbairns 2007-03-19, 1:11 pm |
| "Adrian" <adrian_h_hudson@yahoo.com> writes:
>On Mar 16, 10:30 am, "Jeremy Porteous"
><REMOVEjeremyporteousT...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>
>This confirms what I had read several years ago. And, from what you
>are saying it seems to have been abandoned. This being the case,
>there is a considerable spare numbering capacity for Cardiff! :-)
and next to none in cambridge :-(
--
Robin Fairbairns, Cambridge
| |
| Adrian 2007-03-20, 7:11 pm |
| On Mar 19, 5:17 am, r...@cl.cam.ac.uk (Robin Fairbairns) wrote:
> "Adrian" <adrian_h_hud...@yahoo.com> writes:
>
>
> and next to none in cambridge :-(
> --
> Robin Fairbairns, Cambridge
Clearly Oftel identified a real problem. Based on the foregoing they
seem to have devised an elegant solution. Again, based on what I have
read here, that solution seems to have been abandoned. My best guess
is that Ofcom does not believe that the British public will accept
another round of re-numbering. Who knows!?
All I can say is that "one can take a horse to water, one cannot make
it drink". Number shortages in some areas may be with us for quite
some time.
Adrian
|
|
|
|
|