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)
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)
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)
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)
EuroSong talk 10:06, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
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
Back in November:
My followup a week ago:
I then had two automated emails containing the following message:
The promised reply withing two working days has still not come. The second also contained
but I can't seem to find how. -- Smjg ( talk) 13:03, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
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.
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.
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.
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 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.
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...
but no longer does so.
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.
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))
Whether it's right to give these depends on two things:
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
.... -- Smjg ( talk) 01:56, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
Several more fixes were applied by BT on December 11th, but there is still a long way to go.
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:
There's still issues for other 02x codes:
http://www.thephonebook.bt.com/publisha.content/en/search/uk_codes/search.publisha?Search=023
http://www.thephonebook.bt.com/publisha.content/en/search/uk_codes/search.publisha?Search=024
http://www.thephonebook.bt.com/publisha.content/en/search/uk_codes/search.publisha?Search=029
http://www.thephonebook.bt.com/publisha.content/en/search/uk_codes/search.publisha?Search=011
http://www.thephonebook.bt.com/publisha.content/en/search/uk_codes/search.publisha?Search=028
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))
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))
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))
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))
What is this? http://www.ukwebstart.com/greaterlondon-codes.html Where do these crazy ideas come from? (18:33, 14 June 2009 (UTC))
More crazy stuff... http://www.assistbook.com/Europe/United%20Kingdom/London ( 212.139.102.219 ( talk))
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)
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
(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:
Thoughts? -- Smjg ( talk) 23:33, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
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
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
EuroSong talk 10:06, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
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
Back in November:
My followup a week ago:
I then had two automated emails containing the following message:
The promised reply withing two working days has still not come. The second also contained
but I can't seem to find how. -- Smjg ( talk) 13:03, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
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.
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.
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.
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 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.
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...
but no longer does so.
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.
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))
Whether it's right to give these depends on two things:
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
.... -- Smjg ( talk) 01:56, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
Several more fixes were applied by BT on December 11th, but there is still a long way to go.
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:
There's still issues for other 02x codes:
http://www.thephonebook.bt.com/publisha.content/en/search/uk_codes/search.publisha?Search=023
http://www.thephonebook.bt.com/publisha.content/en/search/uk_codes/search.publisha?Search=024
http://www.thephonebook.bt.com/publisha.content/en/search/uk_codes/search.publisha?Search=029
http://www.thephonebook.bt.com/publisha.content/en/search/uk_codes/search.publisha?Search=011
http://www.thephonebook.bt.com/publisha.content/en/search/uk_codes/search.publisha?Search=028
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))
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))
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))
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))
What is this? http://www.ukwebstart.com/greaterlondon-codes.html Where do these crazy ideas come from? (18:33, 14 June 2009 (UTC))
More crazy stuff... http://www.assistbook.com/Europe/United%20Kingdom/London ( 212.139.102.219 ( talk))
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)
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
(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:
Thoughts? -- Smjg ( talk) 23:33, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
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
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)