Path: utzoo!telecom-request Date: Tue, 9 Apr 91 15:35:19 BST From: Tim Oldham Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom Subject: Re: Dublin Number Expansion Message-ID: Organization: BT Applied Systems, Birmingham, UK Sender: Telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Approved: Telecom@eecs.nwu.edu X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 11, Issue 278, Message 8 of 11 Lines: 31 In article John Slater writes: > I believe the reason BT didn't choose the "017 & 018" option is that > they preferred to keep the entire "01..." sequence clear for as yet > unspecified future use. This might well include implementation of some > of the schemes mentioned above, I speculate. I believe (and I don't speak for my employer on this) that as 01 is already the international dialling sequence (eg the USA is 0101), 017 and 018 were out of the question, or just plain confusing. London was split as it was (Central/Outer) because Central London has a much higher growth rate of demand for numbers. For example, there is a high concentration of companies in Central London, and a lot of them are extending their fax and direct-dial facilities as they grow and/or replace their PABXs. Mercury were also demanding more numbers. While BT put forward the recommendation, paid for the advertising to make it a success, and in so doing provided more numbers for Mercury to use, Oftel (the UK Telecomms regulator) had to approve the plan. I would also dispute John's claim that most people know which London districts are North or South of the river. I don't speak for BT on any of this. Tim Oldham, BT Group Computing Services tjo@its.bt.co.uk ...uunet!ukc!its!tjo