Reading out a London number: 020 8 or 0208
We seem to have stared an interesting debate on our Facebook and Twitter about our phone number.
Normally, we read this out as “0208 133 4567” – We know that the London code is “020”, but we’ve been reading our number this way for as long as we can remember. It has a good bounce about it, even though it may not be the approved way
What started the debate was the following email from “Web Dude”:
“Just a quick pedant note – the code for London is 020 not 0208, 0207, 0203 or anything else (020 0xxx xxxx numbers exist, normally hidden by 0800 and other 08xx free/chargeable numbers)
I did get the Department for Culture, Media and Sport to alter their press releases to show 020 some time back, but unfortunately far too many media people still say ‘0207’ or similar and this confuses Londoners into thinking that it’s OK to quote numbers that way… It isn’t!
Obviously I’d like to hear you say it as “020 8133 4567” though I’ll let you off with “020 813 34567”
To us, neither of the proposed numbers sound right on the radio, so we asked our audience. Here’s a summary of some of the Facebook messages and Tweets that we’ve received so far:
- Helen Prevett: To bring it in line with the way us non-city dwellers say our numbers, it really should be “02081 334567”
- Liane Bond: I always say phone numbers 4-3-4 so I’d say don’t change
- Richard: Easy first one (“0208 133 4567”)
- Stuart J Skinner: I think it sounds perfect as you do it now but you could always go with 0208-13-films :-)
- Rob Dickson: I’d been meaning to mention it for ages. 020 is the dialing code for London.
- Troy Hippy Ashdown: You guys are right. its similar to an 0800 or 08000 number.. you would generally say what’s easier for you
- Bob Standen: I wonder how may people use 8-digit local dialling within the 020 area?
- Martyn Watkins: As long as they say ZERO and not OH, I m happy!
- Ian Coxall: Speaking as a long term GPO/BT/Openreach employee. I really only deal with the last 7 digits these being grouped 3 – 4. So I think in terms of 133 4567. The 020 is an area code (London as we know). Where there used to be Inner and Outer London this was split into 7 & 8 and was often placed in both locations These days, though, with so many other service providers it is necessary to group the last 8 digits. The full international presentation (yes I am being flash) would be +4420 8133 4567. But who really cares, spaces don’t count anyway because there isn’t one on the keypad.
- Dean Smith: It’s how you print it ,not how you say it as you just read out the whole number with no pause . So print 020 81334567.
We’ve changed the number on the website, to keep “Web Dude” sweet, but saying “020 8133 4567” out loud just doesn’t work. For us, we’d rather read out the number in a way that’s memorable and easier to write down.
Web Dude has added the following:
“The smaller locations have 4 (or even 5) digits as the ‘prefix’ (excludes the ‘0’ – so Brighton is (0) 1273 etc), then cities are in one of two formats:
011x xxx xxxx eg Leeds 0113 2xx xxxx
01×1 xxx xxxx eg Glasgow 0131 xxx xxxx
02x numbers are regions and 020 is ‘Greater London’ (hence no distinction between old ‘0171’ and ‘0181’) Format 02x xxxx xxxx eg Coleraine is 028 70xx xxxx
020 is London, 023 Southern England (check Portsmouth, Southampton), 024 Midlands (see Coventry), 028 is N.Ireland, 029 is Wales (Cardiff 029 2xxx xxxx)
It’s when the London Evening Standard has a piece saying “0203 is new code for London” that people get wrong idea… What about when 020 4xxx or 020 5xxx numbers appear (in some years to come) ?
… and Web Dude has been back in touch, with the following:
“The reason for the first gap is to split the prefix from the local part of the number. Within the 020 area (on a landline that itself has an 020 prefix), you can dial 81334567 and get through. You could try dialling 1334567 but you certainly won’t get through – 133 used to be the prefix for Mercury, I think, but now it may give you a chargeable call, or end (after some seconds) with a voice message about you dialling an invalid number.
The prefix and local parts are perhaps less important as so many people dial from a mobile, and ‘assume’ all the digits are significant, but on POTS the Local part is all that is needed to make the call.”
Any thoughts on this rather thorny topic? Please add them below…
This is clearly a man with far too much time on his hands. He must read the phone book for kicks, when he’s not writing to the Daily Mail!
I’m pleased to see (on your Facebook discussion) that both Juliet Durdle and Ian Coxall agree with using 020, even if we may seem a little pedantic :)
Still not sure why 020 813 34567 wouldn’t sound acceptable, and that last sequence of digits flows well, too (how much did you bribe whoever issued the number ?).
While there’s a true purpose for the gap between 020 and the rest, I really do like to see memorable numbers used wherever possible, and remember an example of the national Rail Enquiries number (845 7 48 49 50\) being read out as 8457 484 950\ which ‘lost’ the benefit of the ’48 49 50′ that someone might have paid for (as a ‘silver number’) or which had been handed them on a plate (because the network benefits too, from a heavily used, easily remembered number).
The media failed to get to grips with 020 as the code for London, and unfortunately too few Londoners understood how the numbering space was changing, so with people like the BBC and Sky giving poor examples by reading and showing 020x xxx xxxx numbers, too many assume that is how London numbers should be presented!
@WR – LOL – I had to develop software to charge for phone calls (modem calls actually) in the 80s, so followed charging systems and numbering formats (UK and international) professionally for a few years.
I’m not involved directly with telecomms, but where there are recommendations made by authorities, would prefer something that meets those recommendations than something that doesn’t.
It has taken months to ‘get round to’ commenting (just as someone using Twitter said they meant to comment) so it’s hardly from too much time, just happened to be listening via TuneIn Pro on my mobile and had a web browser open on my iMac, so finally gave some feedback.
I’m pleased to say I’ve not bought a newspaper in 30+ years and certainly have not contributed to the particular one mentioned.
Indeed as time has progressed and various different number formatting has evolved, the emphasis on syntax also changes. Where we were all used to a AFN-NNNN suddenly an extra digit appears an becomes NAFN-NNNN. The London code change back in the 1990’s covered several years and a three stage process. 01 was replaced with 071 & 081, Which in turn was replaced with 0171 & 0181, wich finally disappeared behind 020. To advertise either 0207 or 0208 as London just invokes the possibility of error. Often I receive calls at work where an extra ‘8’ has been added after the 020 when the number was already complete.
So whilst the debate may indeed continue under the guise of ‘ergonomics’ or ‘convenience’ the correct presentation will always be 020 8133 4567.
Writing 020 8133 4567 indicates a caller using a landline anywhere within the 020 area code can get though to this number by dialling only 8133 4567.
It should be spoken how it is written.
Check the format and type of any phone number worldwide using:
http://libphonenumber.appspot.com/ or
http://libphonenumber.googlecode.com/svn/trunk/javascript/i18n/phonenumbers/demo-compiled.html
I don’t see how there can be a debate. One is right, the other is plainly wrong. You separate the number according to area code, we always have. When 020 came along people got confused. Businesses haven’t helped the process, but they should know better. Look at your phone bill. It’ll be presented as 020 8xxx xxxx. It was made clear during the Big Number Change in 2000, this isn’t a new thing. Reading out 0208 adds to this confusion.
Back in the day we had 01 xxx xxxx. Then we got 081 xxx xxxx, and people were still okay with that. Then we got 0181 xxx xxxx. And then after this it went wrong. People seemed to get confused by the Big Number Change when local numbers became 8 digits instead of 7. despite the fact they made it clear that if your number was 0181 it would now be 8xxx xxxx, people found it easier to remember that 0181 was now 0208. And so the phone number wars began.
Interestingly, I’ also a web developer – I don’t know what it is about this that bugs me and Web Dude so much, perhaps we just like to see consistent standards upheld.
Maybe people just don’t use local numbers any more and happily always use the full number every time, so they don’t care about the internal working of the phone number.
SolveMedia are using Adobe Flash for their CAPTCHA. Whilst this is preferable to Google “let’s break TOR because only bad people can possibly need to use it” ignorant CAPTCHA via CloudFlare (*spit* – same selfish attitude), Flash is a poor solution for just about anything (especially from a security perspective – even though this is well-known, even bank and card payment sites sometimes use it for the ecommerce handling parts of their sites, absolutely inane!)
The area code is 0208 or 0207 (and 0203 and 0200 apparently). The rest (next three digits are the sub-area code and the last four are the specific number with any remaining logic of allocation being a mystery to me). Simple, logical and that’s the phone company’s logic. Sorry, the phone-monopoly’s logic, since the more people shout out that BT was always a monopoly and remains a monopoly (its intransigent behaviour in the face of harm caused to the whole nation’s economy by its monopolistic practices just plain proves it).
*Sent from a BT phone line currently submerged in water, because BT think it’s acceptable to “save money” by not doing a one-off job to move the junction box up a pole, and leaving it in the ditch instead, having to repair it at least once every two years. Shareholder-serving quarterly returns force this stupid logic, and how many MILLIONS of people suffer the same closed-logic, ignorance. Tories handed BT a monopoly whilst preaching “free market” capitalism. Lose/lose scenario, and now the sleazy Tories have allowed BT to buy their main mobile broadband competitor, EE. Plus allowed them to have their own mobile network. Thus reducing competition in the market by an order of magnitude. FREE market = freedom to enslave, just as long as you have enough power. Same for the railways and even the energy and water markets. What a pathetic shower of idiots we are to tolerate it. The way we pronounce area codes for London is a pretty pathetic concern in comparison, but go ahead and be part of the problem via helping distract from it, and then part of the responsibility for the poor state of telecoms in this country versus our GDP is yours… [repost? because had to unblock flash for captcha system but then claimed I’d already posted, whilst post never appeared here]
@ThinkGloballyActLocally
That is incorrect. The area code for the entirety of London is 020, and all London phone numbers are 8 digits long.
For example, if we have the number 02031645239 (made up): dialling 164 5239 anywhere in London will not connect the call, one would need to dial 3164 5239.
The purpose of the first space is to separate the area code from the telephone number, so the proper way to write the number is TCC NNNNNNNN, with the arrangement of further spaces in the number itself freely assignable. One could have 020 373 00 373, or 020 88 77 88 77.