User talk:Eurosong/02x

Closed numbering

People who say 0207 and 0208 are on an intellectual par with those who say 'PIN number'. However, if the UK scrapped local dialling and adopted a closed numbering plan then giving out a number as 0207 or 0208 wouldn't be that much of a problem. Still, I don't know why people in the UK get it wrong - Australia switched to eight-digit subscriber numbers for landlines, and you don't see Sydney numbers given out as 029 xxx xxxx instead of 02 9xxx xxxx Quiensabe 17:49, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Did the Australians go through several stages of numbering plan revision, as the UK did (as detailed in the article)? My guess is that, if they did NOT go through these stages, but the change all happened at once - and with enough accompanying publicity, then it was relatively obvious to everyone over the country how to write the new numbers correctly. This, as opposed to the bungled British situation in which London was split up and then re-united. EuroSong 18:28, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

True, the Australians didn't have the constant changes, and the fact that the number of geographic area codes was reduced and the old area code was generally incorporated into the new eight-digit number (hence Armidale 062 xx xxxx became 02 62xx xxx) made things a bit easier. Quiensabe 19:35, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Yeah the capital got 3 changes within a decade which must have been a bit rough but i guess thats the price paid for a migration plan that gave people grace periods to change stored numbers and mostly avoided such horrors as splits (did anywhere except the capital ever get split?) and overlays (like the yanks had to put up with).

As regard splits, the Bristol 0272 -> 0272/0275 immediately springs to mind. A split that is still in place despite the vastly larger numbering capacity now in 0117. Owain (talk) 13:55, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Unless someone can correct me, it was originally 0272 and 027 5x(x) which all became 0272 only to split into 0272 and 0275 again. See http://www.rod.sladen.org.uk/Bristol.htm. There were a lot of 'ring' STD codes getting subsumed by the neighbouring 'core' code like that (both having the same group switching centre in the core code), but I don't think any of the others split again. Rapido 19:24, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

BT gets it wrong in 2009

BT are recommending using the 0207 xxxxxxx format: http://bt.custhelp.com/cgi-bin/bt.cfg/php/enduser/cci/bt_adp.php?p_sid=zP7SPizj&cat_lvl1=345&cat_lvl2=352&cat_lvl3=370&p_cv=3.370&p_cats=345,352,370&p_faqid=10791 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.73.128.99 (talk) 17:34, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Good grief. If they really mean what they say there, doesn't it blow this article out of the water quite thoroughly? DisillusionedBitterAndKnackered (talk) 08:20, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

It's a bit worrying when BT don't know how to correctly format telephone numbers... ~~ [ジャム]^[t - c] 09:23, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes ... even a touch depressing. Is it worth writing to them, I wonder? DisillusionedBitterAndKnackered (talk) 09:26, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

It certainly doesn't help to dispel the "0207/0208" misconception if BT are telling people that is the correct way (Ofcom say it isn't - Appendix A).

If you can find an appropriate way to contact them, then it probably wouldn't be a bad idea. I couldn't easily find an "article feedback" link... unless I've missed it somewhere. ~~ [ジャム]^[t - c] 09:32, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

If you use the "how useful was this article" feature then you get to give text feedback, but with no reply. I have commented, and you may wish to too. But I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for them to fix it! :( DisillusionedBitterAndKnackered (talk) 10:07, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

That's the only place on their site they use '0207' so I guess the article was written in error. If you feedback the article, you'll get a pop up box to comment in. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.73.128.99 (talk) 10:41, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

I've made a comment about it. It isn't the only place they get it wrong - see this thread regarding TalkTalk's "local" calls and where they got the area code from. ~~ [ジャム]^[t - c] 13:33, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Indeed, that article totally and utterly contradicts itself. It's about time the boss of BT implemented a zero tolerance policy for its staff. For that matter, has OFCOM tried to intervene? -- Smjg (talk) 08:53, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

I gave them some feedback too, really not the sort of thing they should be getting wrong beeblebrox (talk) 20:11, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Oh dear! http://twitter.com/BTCare/status/3268072233 Quite depressing. (79.65.231.153 (talk) 21:41, 30 August 2009 (UTC))

Aargh! Not only that, but, contrary to 79.73.128.99's optimistic That's the only place on their site they use '0207', just have a look at this very depressing offering which is enough to put you off your tea, frankly. GAH! :( DBaK (talk) 16:22, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Sickening. Especially from bloody British Telecom themselves. If they don't know their own system, what hope is there for anyone else? I just submitted the following complaint to their website:

Your website is giving out INCORRECT and MISLEADING misinformation.

See the page at: http://www.thephonebook.bt.com/publisha.content/en/search/uk_codes/index.bycounty.publisha?County=Greater+London

For some mysterious reason, you are aplitting London into three separate "area codes". This is 100% WRONG.

London has one single area code: 020.

I am amazed that you - BRITISH TELECOM - do not even know how your OWN telephone numbers are formatted.

Please see the following article if you are still confused:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UK_telephone_code_misconceptions

... and modify your website to give the correct information as soon as possible.

We can only hope for a result... perhaps some other people here can give similar feedback to them? Nudge nudge :) EuroSong ^talk 21:56, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

I've just tried to send a follow-up to my complaint back in November about the same fault with the same facility. (What do they claim as their timeframe for responding to complaints again?) But the facility seems to be temporarily down. I'll try again later. -- Smjg (talk) 01:37, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

I've finally got my message through. -- Smjg (talk) 19:12, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

If not objectively giving the same false info, certainly misleading:
http://bt.custhelp.com/cgi-bin/bt.cfg/php/enduser/cci/bt_adp.php?p_cv=4.437&p_cats=346,431,432,437&p_faqid=7623

So there's already a shortage of numbers left to allocate in the 020 area? -- Smjg (talk) 19:12, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Sad. Thank you for this link. I have just now sent them the following:

The article is INCORRECT.

You have written: "A few customers whose home telephone number starts with 0208 will be allocated a number starting with 0203, due to a shortage of available numbers in that area"

Please note that there is NO SUCH AREA as "0208".

There is one single AREA CODE for London, and that is simply "020".

The "8" (and indeed, the "7" and the "3") are merely the first digits of the local numbers.

Your article should not, ever refer to "0208" as a code, because it is not. And there are millions of available numbers within the 020 area code. You should start educating the public as to how telephone numbers actually work - instead of deliberately perpetuating the confusion.

If you - poor, dear BT employee - are in any doubt yourself as to how telephone numbers work, please see the useful article at:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UK_telephone_code_misconceptions

EuroSong ^talk 10:06, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

A glimpse into BT's twisted logic

A REPLY FROM ASSISTANT TO THE CHAIRMAN OF BT....

Thank you for your email regarding the London-area dialling code. Please accept my apologies for the delay in responding in this matter.

The dialling code for London was changed on 22nd April 2000 when the previous codes 0171 & 0181 were replaced a single code ‘020’. The original 7-digit local numbers within these dialling code areas were then prefixed with a 7 or 8 respectively, which meant that all local numbers became 8-digits.

Obviously with the extended period of time that has elapsed, one would hope that those customers whose numbers have been directly affected (i.e. located within this geographic area) would be familiar with the change, particularly as they would no longer be able to successfully connect to another local number without utilising the additional digit. These people would not require the 020 dialling code, as they are situated within the same dialling code area.

For people outside of the 020 area-code, they would have to dial the full 11-digit number (i.e. including the dialling code). For their information, the new codes were often written as 0207 or 0208 to ensure they were aware of the extra digit added to the original 'local' numbers, otherwise would be likely to swap 0171 / 0181 for 020 before dialling the original 7-digit local number, which would result in a failed connection.

It must be noted that the London area code was not the only change at this time - various other codes were also altered, including completely new codes being created for Cardiff, Coventry, Southampton, Portsmouth and Northern Ireland. For example the Cardiff area code changed from 01222 to 029 with a prefix of 20 added to all existing 6-digit local numbers).

Due to the wide-ranging effects of the number changes, in addition to the extensive nationwide advertising program, a period of parallel working was established to allow time for all people to become familiar with the new codes and maintain a working service. After an agreed period of time this was withdrawn and replaced with an automated information-message service to advise the caller of the new requirement, before this was also withdrawn meaning any misdialled numbers would result in a failed connection.

I note from your email that you have obtained the relevant information from the OFCOM website, which also contains some reports with the results of surveys & investigations into consumers' awareness of the London area codes (particularly from consumers directly involved). I would recommend you use this site as the primary and definitive reference point for any of your customers who require such confirmation; clearly, there are countless telephony service providers and a host of sources of telephony information to which individual consumers may refer, where the information is listed & structured in a variety of ways.

That said I have reviewed the information held on the 'UK codes' section of the BT Exchanges website detailed in your correspondence, and can concede that the detail could perhaps be misinterpreted. Whilst I can understand the original rationale behind the format used (as explained earlier), my personal opinion would be that sufficient time has now elapsed and perhaps the details for the areas concerned could be modified accordingly.

Therefore, I have relayed this detail to the relevant operational team for their information. Whilst I cannot assure you of any immediate alteration, this feedback is most welcome and will certainly assist in the decision making process, where such updates are reviewed and determined.

I trust this information is useful and provides the desired clarification in this matter. Again, thank you for taking the time to relay your customers' stated lack of understanding in this regard and the difficulties that this presents in your particular line of business.

Yours sincerely,

Pete Kernick

Assistant to the Chairman & Chief Executive

BT Retail

Tel: 08001218704

Fax: 01332 578177

Email: CardiffCustRelationsHLC=[=AT=]=bt.com (79.73.238.89 (talk) 19:23, 6 September 2009 (UTC))

If I was a bad person I would say that this mostly sounds like a load of near-lying, semi-confused, track-covering cr*p from a company that is having difficulty admitting that it screwed up. But at least they do concede that "the detail could perhaps be misinterpreted" (or is garbage, as we say in English) and we will no doubt see it amended by the end of the next decade, or so. Well done you for getting an answer out of them, shame on them that it's so pathetic, and one and a half cheers that they've sort-of skirted round the edge of admitting that they were, er, wrong and it needs fixing and it might be right one day. Ooops ... I'm now in danger of behaving like this is a forum, and should stop! :) Cheers, DBaK (talk) 08:27, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

For the record, the messages I sent

Back in November:

I have just looked at this page

http://www.thephonebook.bt.com/publisha.content/en/search/uk_codes/search.publisha?Search=london&x=14&y=2

and found the following:

"1. The code for London Greater is 0203
2. The code for London Inner Area is 0207
3. The code for London Outer Area is 0208
4. The code for Londonderry is 02871"

As you probably know, every one of these statements is complete nonsense. I expect to see this information corrected ASAP.

1. The code for London is 020
2. The code for Londonderry is 028

and similarly with all other instances involving the codes 023, 024, 028 and 029.

You are a phone company, indeed the UK's main phone operator, therefore there is ABSOLUTELY NO EXCUSE for your giving out such false information.

I trust that you will take appropriate disciplinary action towards the person who entered these mistakes into the database.

My followup a week ago:

I contacted you back in November to report serious errors in the dialling code lookup facility
http://www.thephonebook.bt.com/publisha.content/en/search/uk_codes/index.publisha

The false information is as follows (among many other instances):

"1. The code for London Greater is 0203
2. The code for London Inner Area is 0207
3. The code for London Outer Area is 0208
4. The code for Londonderry is 02871"

Months later, I have still not had any reply, and there is no sign of the errors being fixed.

I expect to see ALL listings of 02x dialling codes corrected without further delay. If you cannot do this in a timely manner, please remove the dialling code lookup facility from the site, since in its current state it is worse than non-existent. If you do not comply within seven days, I will take further measures to name and shame your company.

I then had two automated emails containing the following message:

Thanks for contacting us. We take all complaints very seriously and we'll do whatever we can to put things right for you.

You don't need to reply to this automatic message. We're now dealing with your complaint we'll get in touch within the next two working days.

Your reference number is 090905-007033.

For help and advice 24 hours a day please visit www.bt.com/help

The promised reply withing two working days has still not come. The second also contained

If this issue is not resolved to your satisfaction, you may reopen it within the next 7 days.

but I can't seem to find how. -- Smjg (talk) 13:03, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

BT fixes it. Or do they?

Yesterday, BT finally amended their UK area codes website in an attempt to fix their 0207 and 0208 misinformation problem. This comes after a decade of publishing false information. They only get half a cheer though, because predictably while fixing some things, they have messed up the rest of the list even further.

London

It looks like BT has at last, and at least, fixed the 0207 / 0208 / 0203 part of their screw up...

http://www.thephonebook.bt.com/publisha.content/en/search/uk_codes/search.publisha?Search=0207

http://www.thephonebook.bt.com/publisha.content/en/search/uk_codes/search.publisha?Search=0208

http://www.thephonebook.bt.com/publisha.content/en/search/uk_codes/search.publisha?Search=0203

These used to say "0207 London inner", "0208 London outer" and "0203 London greater". They now say "no such area code".

http://www.thephonebook.bt.com/publisha.content/en/search/uk_codes/search.publisha?Search=020

This used to say "not enough digits". This now says "London Greater".

So far so good.

02x

There's still issues for 023 and other 02x codes though...

http://www.thephonebook.bt.com/publisha.content/en/search/uk_codes/search.publisha?Search=023

It used to say 02380 and 02392. Now it says (023) 80 and (023) 92. The parentheses make things more clear, but it should say just 023 or else should say (023) 8 and (023) 9 because there's not just 80 and 92 local numbers anymore, there's now 81 and 93 numbers to consider.

Likewise 02476 now says (024) 76 when it should be just 024 or else (024) 7, because there are both 76 and 77 numbers in this area.

Likewise 02920 now says (029) 20 when it should be just 029 or else (029) 2, because there are both 20 and 21 numbers in this area.

So, while these entries are better than before, they are still not quite 100% correct.

011x

Sheffield and other 011x codes have been fixed...

http://www.thephonebook.bt.com/publisha.content/en/search/uk_codes/search.publisha?Search=0114

but without parentheses for any of these new codes.

The old entry 01142 now says 0114, and that is correct.

The code (0114) 2 would be incorrect, as new numbers begin (0114) 3.

Likewise for all the other 011x codes, they now read 011x instead of 011xx.

However, why is the area code for Long Eaton shown as being a digit longer than all of others?

http://www.thephonebook.bt.com/publisha.content/en/search/uk_codes/search.publisha?Search=011

It still says 01159 for that one area.

The reason? It's that old "inattention to detail" problem, yet again. They missed one.

Northern Ireland

Northern Ireland is a mess. There is only one place listed for 028...

http://www.thephonebook.bt.com/publisha.content/en/search/uk_codes/search.publisha?Search=028

That query should return either a very long list of places, or else should say 'Northern Ireland' (not Donaghmore, which should be listed as (028) 87).

If you type something like 02890 then at least you are corrected...

http://www.thephonebook.bt.com/publisha.content/en/search/uk_codes/search.publisha?Search=02890

The entry used to say 02890 but now says (028) 90.

While the 028 query doesn't return much of a list, adding a digit to the query gives a much better result...

http://www.thephonebook.bt.com/publisha.content/en/search/uk_codes/search.publisha?Search=0282

http://www.thephonebook.bt.com/publisha.content/en/search/uk_codes/search.publisha?Search=0289

This is sort of almost right, but no mention is made of (028) 95 for Belfast, or some other codes. The list is incomplete.

The list still has flaws, and the way this works is different to both the way that London was handled and the way that the other 02x area codes were handled.

Inconsistent

It looks like different types of fixes have been separately applied for London 02x, Northern Ireland 028, other 02x codes, and 011x codes, now leading to inconsistent operation. However, the end is result is a LOT better than it was, even if it is still not quite correct.

Notice the re-inclusion of parentheses. If that had been done a decade ago, we wouldn't be in this mess now.

The inconsistent operation is best highlighted by this query...

http://www.thephonebook.bt.com/publisha.content/en/search/uk_codes/search.publisha?Search=London

It is also important to notice that for some areas the list shows initial digits like (028) 71 while for other areas the list probably used to say something like...

0191 - Durham (3)

0191 - Sunderland (5)

0191 - Tyneside (2, 4, 6)

but no longer does so.

From bad to worse

All of these areas have been erroneously cut back to 01xxx format...

(0138 73) Langholm; (0152 42) Hornby; (0153 94) Hawkshead; (0153 95) Grange-over-Sands; (0153 96) Sedbergh; (0169 73) Wigton; (0169 74) Raughton Head; (0169 77) Hallbankgate; (0176 83) Appleby; (0176 84) Pooley Bridge; (0176 87) Keswick; (0194 67) Gosforth + other unknown named areas that these codes cover.

I can only guess that the list was edited by someone who doesn't understand how these area codes work, wasn't properly briefed on what to do, and didn't check against Ofcom's and other lists.

This list is not a new list.

You can tell that it is an old list, because Ebbsfleet is still missing. There are other clues, which BT can work out for themselves if they are reading this.

It looks like some 'patching' and 'bodging' has been done, rather than a complete rewrite.

So, yet again, inattention to detail, misunderstandings of their own numbering system, and delegation to someone who doesn't check their work; all overseen by people with all of the above attributes.

Come on BT. SORT IT OUT. It's a disgrace. (90.193.31.222 (talk) 01:25, 18 November 2009 (UTC))

Sub-ranges

Whether it's right to give these depends on two things:

• what BT considers the purpose of the site to be - just to list area codes, or to indicate where a phone number is from the first few digits
• whether OFCOM has really indicated that this sub-range distinguishes one area from another and will continue to do so for the foreseeable future, or will do so.

For example, OFCOM's facility gives "Southampton(8X), Portsmouth(9X)" for 023, so it's valid to write them as "(023) 8" and "(023) 9". OTOH, it gives no sub-ranges for 020, 024 or 029, and so neither should BT's version. Maybe the 029 code will grow to cover more of Wales, or 024 will cover more of the West Midlands – IWC the code'll probably be split into sub-ranges – but BT would be better crossing such bridges on reaching them.

And yes, NI is a total mess the way searching for 028 returns only Donaghmore.

At least they've got the brackets in. But it still ought to be that little more honest - "The code plus sub-range for Londonderry" rather than just "The code for Londonderry" for instance, just to be clear. The other problem with this notation is that someone'll drop the brackets when reading it aloud, and then we'll be more or less back to where we started. Maybe it should, instead, say

The code for Londonderry is 028, with local numbers beginning 71

.... -- Smjg (talk) 01:56, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't think it matters if they show 029 or (029) 2 here. Either way, both will convey correct information.

The main point here is that BT's list cannot give an answer for a valid query for a valid 'number' like 02921.

It says it does not exist. If you ask for 029 or 0292 you are told that (029) 20 is valid - which makes (029) 21 appear to be non-valid, when it isn't; c.f. what happens for 0207 queries now.

(90.193.31.222 (talk) 02:42, 18 November 2009 (UTC))

The line has to be drawn somewhere, unless you want it to locate an arbitrary phone number for you. That said, one way it could be made to work is to first search for the full sequence of digits you entered, and then drop one digit at a time until a match is found. -- Smjg (talk) 09:34, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Initial digit(s) of the local number part only need to be stated when an area code straddles more than one charging group. That's true of 0191, 023, 028 and a number of other older codes, but the list does not show that information for 0191 now.

It is odd that this isn't consistently highlighted for all such codes. I'm sure it used to be highlighted by showing those initial digits after the place name. That no longer happens for those other areas.

(90.193.31.98 (talk) 10:00, 18 November 2009 (UTC))

BT has another go, and fails again

Several more fixes were applied by BT on December 11th, but there is still a long way to go.

London

The entries for London have been changed again:

http://www.thephonebook.bt.com/publisha.content/en/search/uk_codes/search.publisha?Search=020

Instead of 0207, 0208, and 0203 returning no results, you now get:

• The location for (020) 3 is London Greater
• The location for (020) 7 is London Greater
• The location for (020) 8 is London Greater (talk) 15:34, 22 December 2009 (UTC))

They fixed it now! Take a look at http://www.thephonebook.bt.com/publisha.content/en/search/uk_codes/search.publisha?Search=020. 020 is "London greater". Now do a search for "0207" (and the others) - and a message is returned that it does not exist. Kudos to BT... eventually! EuroSong ^talk 18:04, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

BT might have changed the London entry again in recent months, but since mid-2010 a number of new errors have appeared in BT's list. These include spelling errors, illogical placement of parentheses, incorrect place names, and missing and incorrect codes. More importantly, BT used to list every exchange name and the code for each one, but all that "locality" data was removed earlier in the year. The list is now a bad clone of Ofcom's list, with all its faults and errors, but with some extra errors introduced by BT staff who haven't yet mastered the art of cut and paste.(80.42.224.197 (talk) 00:33, 24 October 2010 (UTC))

BT have meddled with the London entry several times in the last 2 years. The initial complaint was that the list incorrectly gave "0207" and "0208" as valid codes. After the first round of editing, the search function returned "no such code" for 0207 and 0208; but that probably sparked complaints that the "London code is missing". It was then altered again, this time to return (020)7 and (020)8 which is much more clear. More recently it changed to how you see it now, returning no results other than "020 - London". That change happened at the same time that all the locality data was removed, and the many other errors were introduced.(80.42.224.197 (talk) 00:33, 24 October 2010 (UTC))

02x

There's still issues for other 02x codes:

http://www.thephonebook.bt.com/publisha.content/en/search/uk_codes/search.publisha?Search=023

• The entries that read (023) 80 should read (023) 8. Numbers begin 80 or 81 in this area.
• The entries that read (023) 92 should read (023) 9. Numbers begin 92 or 93 in this area.

http://www.thephonebook.bt.com/publisha.content/en/search/uk_codes/search.publisha?Search=024

• The entries that read (024) 76 should read (024) 7 or just (024). Numbers begin 76 or 77 in this area.

http://www.thephonebook.bt.com/publisha.content/en/search/uk_codes/search.publisha?Search=029

• The entries that read (029) 20 should read (029) 2 or just (029). Numbers begin 20 or 21 in this area.(talk) 15:34, 22 December 2009 (UTC))

011x

http://www.thephonebook.bt.com/publisha.content/en/search/uk_codes/search.publisha?Search=011

• The code for Long Eaton has been corrected. It incorrectly said 01159, and now says 0115.

Northern Ireland

http://www.thephonebook.bt.com/publisha.content/en/search/uk_codes/search.publisha?Search=028

• A search for 028 does now list all the 028 exchanges, instead of just one entry.
• Donaghmore has been corrected. It now says (028) 87.
• Belfast (028) 95 is still missing from the list.(talk) 15:34, 22 December 2009 (UTC))

01xx xx areas

All of these areas that were erroneously cut back to 01xxx format (final digit is now missing) are still wrong:

(0138 73) Langholm; (0152 42) Hornby; (0153 94) Hawkshead; (0153 95) Grange-over-Sands; (0153 96) Sedbergh; (0169 73) Wigton; (0169 74) Raughton Head; (0169 77) Hallbankgate; (0176 83) Appleby; (0176 84) Pooley Bridge; (0176 87) Keswick; (0194 67) Gosforth + other unknown named areas that these codes cover.(talk) 15:34, 22 December 2009 (UTC))

This list is not a new list

You can tell that it is an old list, because Ebbsfleet is still missing. It looks like some 'patching' and 'bodging' has been done, rather than a complete rewrite.

So, yet again, inattention to detail, misunderstandings of their own numbering system, and delegation to someone who doesn't check their work; all overseen by people with all of the above attributes. (86.128.125.222 (talk) 15:34, 22 December 2009 (UTC))

Changes in 2010

In May or June 2010, BT's list was changed again. Roadhead was corrected from 01679 to 016977. Several other areas, such as Hornby and Kirkby Lonsdale, were individually corrected from 01524 to 015242 over a number of weeks. Many other errors remained - especially the numerous 01xxxx area codes published with a digit missing.(79.70.233.162 (talk) 18:13, 24 October 2010 (UTC))

Several months later, BT suddenly deleted their very detailed "locality" lists, and replaced the whole lot with a copy of Ofcom's much less detailed area code list complete with Ofcom's old errors. At the same time, a number of new errors were introduced in BT's list, with Southampton quoted as 023(92) and Portsmouth quoted as 023(80) for example. Brampton was incorrectly noted as 01697. A number of other new errors also appeared, however queries for "0207" and "0208" again returned "not found", with London now listed solely as 020.(79.70.233.162 (talk) 18:13, 24 October 2010 (UTC))

More Websites with Wrong Information

EVERY 01x1 xxx xxxx and 011x xxx xxxx and 02x xxxx xxxx number listed on Qype is printed in the wrong format. Even if you edit the number to be the correct format, their software changes it back again. (10:56, 3 June 2009 (UTC))

Not only does http://www.talktalk.co.uk/pricing/uk encourage you to "Type London or Liverpool as the area or 0208 or 01511 as the dialling code" the list of codes returned is completely wrong too. Manchester is listed as having 8 codes like 01611, 01612, 01613, 01614, 01616, 01617, 01618, 01619. No idea why 01615 is not listed, but in any case the code for Manchester is 0161 not 0161x. (18:29, 6 June 2009 (UTC))

The code lookup function at http://www.ukphoneinfo.com/locator.php fails for all 02x codes, but does work for 011x codes. (22:15, 13 June 2009 (UTC))

Yet more junk over at: http://www.ukareacodes.org/ (18:00, 25 June 2009 (UTC))

Their site has said "Account Suspended" for the last month or two. Looks like they're gone for good. (212.139.102.219 (talk) 22:05, 16 October 2010 (UTC))

What is this? http://www.ukwebstart.com/greaterlondon-codes.html Where do these crazy ideas come from? (18:33, 14 June 2009 (UTC))

On the last site, the code for Uxbridge is apparently 02088, instead of 01895. What a huge fail. 82.152.205.47 (talk) 14:17, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

More crazy stuff... http://www.assistbook.com/Europe/United%20Kingdom/London (212.139.102.219 (talk))

Erroneous?

I have noticed amongst friends and acquaintances that those who live in the old 0181 area all use "020 8xxx xxxx", but those who live in the old 0171 area use "0207 xxx xxxx"... The survey in the OFCOM report does not question whether the respondent lives/works in London (0207, sic) or in the suburbs (020 8), it's a shame as I'd be interested to hear if the disparity is a general one. Perhaps it's snobbery: maybe dialling codes are as prestigious as postal codes, and those in central London don't want to feel lumped in with those from the sticks! :-) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 20.133.0.15 (talk) 08:55, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Sites like http://www.everyphonenumber.com/telephone-numbers/centrallondon-0207-2000000.html perpetuate this myth. Aaaarrrgghh!!!

Aaaarrrghhh indeed! I just sent them the following message through their contact form:

Please note that the dialling code for London is "020".

London is NOT split in "central" and "outer" regions, as it was during the period of 071/081 - and later, 0171/0181.

When the new codes came in, London was reunited under a single code. The "7" and "8" are merely relics from the days of the split, and now form a part of the LOCAL NUMBER.

So - if your full telephone number is (020) 7222 1234 - then it's possible to dial this from a landline inside London, as simply 7222 1234.

So you see - the code is 020 - NOT 0207. The 7 is the first digit of the local number.

I read, with disappointment, pages on your site such as http://www.everyphonenumber.com/telephone-numbers/centrallondon-0207-2000000.html

Please make all your staff aware of how London telephone numbers work - and amend your site accordingly. Currently it looks ridiculous, and is an embarrassment to your company. EuroSong ^talk 08:59, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

UK Phone Info is in a total mess in this respect. I've tried emailing them a few times but don't seem to be getting through to them at all. And those idiots who like to think that advertising that they don't know their own phone numbers makes them superior in some way clearly need their heads examining. -- Smjg (talk) 15:37, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Hah - what a piece of crap! I sent them the following:

Dear UKphoneinfo,

In your search box I tried searching info for the London code - 020 - but the message was returned that the code was "too short".

Why don't you have the London area code on your system? It's the most important one... similarly with Cardiff, 029 - it does not seem to exist.

Please add these codes to your system.

Wonder if they'll get the message. EuroSong ^talk 23:18, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Try entering 020 71 or 023 8 or 023 80 in the search. You'll see that they almost get it. They use both the right and wrong format on the resulting page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.179.68.65 (talk • contribs) 15:49, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

That's half EuroSong's point - that you have to enter something that isn't the area code you're trying to find is unacceptable. -- Smjg (talk) 13:40, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Just thinking about it now, the original point only begs the question of from where comes the delusion that 0207 is more prestigious than 020. Even if postcode/phone number prestige as a phenomenon is real.... -- Smjg (talk) 10:21, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Will it be done differently in the future?

Ofcom clearly knows what an issue it has become. So I'm guessing they've learned to the extent that area code changes aren't going to be done in this way in the future.

I wonder what they'll come up with instead. One possibility I can think of is to add the extra digit(s) somewhere other than the beginning of the local number. For example, to look at London numbers in hindsight, perhaps

• 0171 tuv wxyz → 020 t0uv wxyz
• 0181 tuv wxyz → 020 t1uv wxyz

(Is this what they did with NDO numbers? So why not all 02x numbers?) Implementing something like this for all future changes that lengthen local numbers would force people to acknowledge that the local number has changed. And using only 0 and 1 as the second digits of migrated numbers would avoid degenerate cases in which the last 7 digits could plausibly be a local number or even coincide with the old local number. And where six digits have grown to 8:

• 01703 uvwxyz → 023 u00v wxyz
• 01705 uvwxyz → 023 u10v wxyz

Thoughts? -- Smjg (talk) 23:33, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

BRACKETS would have solved the issue. It would have mattered not if people wrote (020)7 222 1234 or (020) 7222 1234 or (020) 72 22 12 34, the message would have been clear either way. The dropping of brackets from geographic area codes is one of the biggest reasons for the confusion. The type of change you note - adding digits within the local number, not in front of it - has been used on a few previous occasions, mostly to avoid mis-dialling when there is a clash between old and new numbers. One occasion was in the 0191 area, for changes where old (0632) 4axxxx numbers moved to new (091) 41a xxxx numbers. Without brackets I am sure that people would have started writing 09141 xxxxx in vast numbers though, and certainly would do so today. I see plenty of examples of London being written as 02030 and 02070 and 02077 for example. New number ranges are carefully chosen; with the new range being 'protected' for many years before the change. London (020) 3 numbers are the first to be issued as new numbers in London because the 0203 area code is long out of use, as is 01203, Coventry now being 024. Using (020) 4 or (020) 6 would have 'clashed' with 0204 and 0206 which have moved to 01204 and 01206 for example. Ofcom see a risk of confusion (albeit small) if both (020) 4 and (01204) are in use at the same time. (79.73.189.54 (talk) 12:19, 8 October 2009 (UTC))

But given that nobody has managed to get everyone to space the numbers correctly, what possible chance is there of getting everyone to put the brackets in all the time? Especially given that, when entering numbers into a mobile phonebook, you frequently have to drop not only the brackets but the spaces as well. People need educating so that they know where to put them back in again later. Still, inserting the extra digit(s) inside the local number should work most of the time regardless of whether people use the brackets or not. Ofcom could do well to take the lesson learned from their past success with 091.

That said, I can't see any renumbering scheme stopping those crazy people who make up codes out of thin air such as 02070, or even 0203 for that matter.-- Smjg (talk) 13:55, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Simply, brackets would have given a clear 'area code / local number' demarcation, and so the confusion as to what digits were in the area code would not have arisen for most people. Having not arisen, they would have mostly put the digits with the number and not with the area code, even if they sometimes omitted the brackets.

Interestingly, the Apple iPhone - an American product - display spaces all of the digits of a telephone number out exactly right for any and every country dialled. Why is their tech so much more advanced than ours? (79.73.189.54 (talk) 15:22, 8 October 2009 (UTC))

Missed/wasted opportunities

Let's make a list of instances that would have been good opportunities to educate the public, but which have been either overlooked or messed up.

We can start with the many already-pointed-out news articles that tried to clear up confusion somewhere but ended up making matters far worse, like

• Calling Sheffield 0114 3 . . . . . . .
• Coventry confusion as capital rings changes
• 0203 to be third telephone code (the article as a whole is just a bunch of lies, but the inclusion of an Ofcom quote seems to be a quarter-hearted attempt at something)

Someone on the AfD page sensibly pointed out the phone number chosen for the London 2012 Olympics as being one major blunder in this area.

My own nomination goes to The Curious Incident of the Dog in the Night-time - Christopher discovers some letters containing broken London phone numbers, but for some unknown reason Mark Haddon programmed him to know no better instead of being sick to death of it.

Nominations please! -- Smjg (talk) 17:51, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

This article about the Cardiff area code gets it completely wrong: http://www.walesonline.co.uk/news/wales-news/2010/05/29/no-more-02920-prefixes-for-city-says-of-com-91466-26546062/ (80.42.229.83 (talk) 12:43, 23 October 2010 (UTC))

Portsmouth fares little better: http://www.portsmouth.co.uk/biz/Phone-wires-crossed-over-new.5337973.jp (80.42.229.83 (talk) 12:43, 23 October 2010 (UTC))

Mayhem in Reading http://www.newburytoday.co.uk/News/Article.aspx?articleID=4109 (80.42.229.83 (talk) 12:43, 23 October 2010 (UTC))

Consumer reaction in Reading: http://www.getreading.co.uk/business/s/2044243_new_fishing_tackle_shop_in_wokingham - customers bite back. (80.42.229.83 (talk) 12:43, 23 October 2010 (UTC))