Can anyone tell me when BT abandoned local, regional and long distance
call charging in the UK, i.e. the charge was the same whether you rang
your next door neighbour or Buckingham Palace?

Come on Angus - your field.................

Woody <harrogate3@ntlworld.com> wrote:
> Can anyone tell me when BT abandoned local, regional and long distance
> call charging in the UK, i.e. the charge was the same whether you rang
> your next door neighbour or Buckingham Palace?
>
> Come on Angus - your field.................

Late 90s I think. When I started dialup in 1996 there was still a local
number for each area code. I think by about 97/98 there were 0845 numbers
that were a 'local call rate' from anywhere, negating the need for a
patchwork of local numbers.

In 2000 the 02 number range was brought into use - I think by then local and
regional tariffs had gone away.

I think it was early 90s when the 'peak' band of 9am-1pm was withdrawn -
businesses would wait until after lunch to make calls.

Theo

On 01 Sep 2023 20:09:35 +0100 (BST), Theo
<theom+news@chiark.greenend.org.uk> wrote:

>Woody <harrogate3@ntlworld.com> wrote:
>> Can anyone tell me when BT abandoned local, regional and long distance
>> call charging in the UK, i.e. the charge was the same whether you rang
>> your next door neighbour or Buckingham Palace?
>>
>> Come on Angus - your field.................
>
>Late 90s I think. When I started dialup in 1996 there was still a local
>number for each area code. I think by about 97/98 there were 0845 numbers
>that were a 'local call rate' from anywhere, negating the need for a
>patchwork of local numbers.

I think there was an era after withdrawal of the local codes when own
exchange calls were charged as local and nearby (adjacent) exchanges
could be called at local rate using the STD code. I may be wrong. It
was certainly possible to apply different rates to STD codes - a, b,
b1, c.
>
>In 2000 the 02 number range was brought into use - I think by then local and
>regional tariffs had gone away.
>
>I think it was early 90s when the 'peak' band of 9am-1pm was withdrawn -
>businesses would wait until after lunch to make calls.

Busby says 'Call after 6 pm or at weekends - or from work'.

Scott <newsgroups@gefion.myzen.co.uk> wrote:
> On 01 Sep 2023 20:09:35 +0100 (BST), Theo
> <theom+news@chiark.greenend.org.uk> wrote:
>
> >Woody <harrogate3@ntlworld.com> wrote:
> >> Can anyone tell me when BT abandoned local, regional and long distance
> >> call charging in the UK, i.e. the charge was the same whether you rang
> >> your next door neighbour or Buckingham Palace?
> >>
> >> Come on Angus - your field.................
> >
> >Late 90s I think. When I started dialup in 1996 there was still a local
> >number for each area code. I think by about 97/98 there were 0845 numbers
> >that were a 'local call rate' from anywhere, negating the need for a
> >patchwork of local numbers.
>
> I think there was an era after withdrawal of the local codes when own
> exchange calls were charged as local and nearby (adjacent) exchanges
> could be called at local rate using the STD code. I may be wrong. It
> was certainly possible to apply different rates to STD codes - a, b,
> b1, c.

Local codes were a separate issue from local call rates - I think towards
the end of local codes the pricing was the same when using the local code
and the STD. (and the local code went to an exchange in an STD area, not
the whole STD)

Local codes were withdrawn late-80s/early-90s, but the local charge band
continued until late 90s.

Theo

On 02 Sep 2023 10:16:36 +0100 (BST), Theo
<theom+news@chiark.greenend.org.uk> wrote:

>Scott <newsgroups@gefion.myzen.co.uk> wrote:
>> On 01 Sep 2023 20:09:35 +0100 (BST), Theo
>> <theom+news@chiark.greenend.org.uk> wrote:
>>
>> >Woody <harrogate3@ntlworld.com> wrote:
>> >> Can anyone tell me when BT abandoned local, regional and long distance
>> >> call charging in the UK, i.e. the charge was the same whether you rang
>> >> your next door neighbour or Buckingham Palace?
>> >>
>> >> Come on Angus - your field.................
>> >
>> >Late 90s I think. When I started dialup in 1996 there was still a local
>> >number for each area code. I think by about 97/98 there were 0845 numbers
>> >that were a 'local call rate' from anywhere, negating the need for a
>> >patchwork of local numbers.
>>
>> I think there was an era after withdrawal of the local codes when own
>> exchange calls were charged as local and nearby (adjacent) exchanges
>> could be called at local rate using the STD code. I may be wrong. It
>> was certainly possible to apply different rates to STD codes - a, b,
>> b1, c.
>
>Local codes were a separate issue from local call rates - I think towards
>the end of local codes the pricing was the same when using the local code
>and the STD. (and the local code went to an exchange in an STD area, not
>the whole STD)
>
AIUI there was no 'whole STD'. I thought the STD code was put through
a translator to convert it into a unique routing code for the
particular exchange.

>Local codes were withdrawn late-80s/early-90s, but the local charge band
>continued until late 90s.
>
This was my understanding too.

Fixed inland call charges varies for residential and business users.

For residential, it was May 2003 when BT introduced it's first contract package
BT Together, 1p off peak, 3p peak, no set-up, minimum call cost 5p. All
customers were moved to BT Together a year later. Prices have rocketed since,
and it's now cheaper to call most of Europe than next door with BT.

For business, there were cheaper packages for many years without cheaper local,
but 1.5p off peak local calls survived until July 2010 when call set-up was
introduced and local calls lost.

Angus

On 01 Sep 2023 20:09:35 +0100 (BST), Theo <theom+news@chiark.greenend.org.uk> wrote:

>Woody <harrogate3@ntlworld.com> wrote:
>> Can anyone tell me when BT abandoned local, regional and long distance
>> call charging in the UK, i.e. the charge was the same whether you rang
>> your next door neighbour or Buckingham Palace?
>>
>> Come on Angus - your field.................
>
>Late 90s I think. When I started dialup in 1996 there was still a local
>number for each area code. I think by about 97/98 there were 0845 numbers
>that were a 'local call rate' from anywhere, negating the need for a
>patchwork of local numbers.
>
>In 2000 the 02 number range was brought into use - I think by then local and
>regional tariffs had gone away.
>
>I think it was early 90s when the 'peak' band of 9am-1pm was withdrawn -
>businesses would wait until after lunch to make calls.
>

According to http://www.davros.org/phones/charging.html :

: Types of call
:
: The BT charging system has three types of call: local, regional, and national. Local calls are generally cheaper than regional ones, which in turn are cheaper (or sometimes the same price as) national ones. Of course, the cost of a call also varies according to the time of day and the day of the week.
:
: On 1999-10-01 BT made the regional and national rates the same for all calls, and on 2000-12-20 they formally abolished the distinction.

On Sat, 02 Sep 2023 17:13:20 +0100, Codger <codger524@gmail.com>
wrote:

>On 01 Sep 2023 20:09:35 +0100 (BST), Theo <theom+news@chiark.greenend.org.uk> wrote:
>
>>Woody <harrogate3@ntlworld.com> wrote:
>>> Can anyone tell me when BT abandoned local, regional and long distance
>>> call charging in the UK, i.e. the charge was the same whether you rang
>>> your next door neighbour or Buckingham Palace?
>>>
>>> Come on Angus - your field.................
>>
>>Late 90s I think. When I started dialup in 1996 there was still a local
>>number for each area code. I think by about 97/98 there were 0845 numbers
>>that were a 'local call rate' from anywhere, negating the need for a
>>patchwork of local numbers.
>>
>>In 2000 the 02 number range was brought into use - I think by then local and
>>regional tariffs had gone away.
>>
>>I think it was early 90s when the 'peak' band of 9am-1pm was withdrawn -
>>businesses would wait until after lunch to make calls.
>>
>
>According to http://www.davros.org/phones/charging.html :
>
>: Types of call
>:
>: The BT charging system has three types of call: local, regional, and national. Local calls are generally cheaper than regional ones, which in turn are cheaper (or sometimes the same price as) national ones. Of course, the cost of a call also varies according to the time of day and the day of the week.
>:
>: On 1999-10-01 BT made the regional and national rates the same for all calls, and on 2000-12-20 they formally abolished the distinction.
>
I remember when it was four:

Local
a rate (up to 35 miles)
b rate (over 35 miles)
b1 rate (major cities over 35 miles)

There may also have been a c rate for the Channel Islands.

On 02/09/2023 10:16, Theo wrote:
> Local codes were a separate issue from local call rates - I think towards
> the end of local codes the pricing was the same when using the local code
> and the STD. (and the local code went to an exchange in an STD area, not
> the whole STD)

So was there a time when the same call from a number on one exchange to
another number on the same (or adjacent) exchange was charged at a
different rate depending on whether you used to local code or the STD
code? I'd always understood that the call charge and the routing was the
same either way, but maybe the call that used the STD code was routed by
a longer distance via the nearest trunk routing point and so was charged
differently.

On Sat, 2 Sep 2023 23:57:39 +0100, NY <me@privacy.net> wrote:

>On 02/09/2023 10:16, Theo wrote:
>> Local codes were a separate issue from local call rates - I think towards
>> the end of local codes the pricing was the same when using the local code
>> and the STD. (and the local code went to an exchange in an STD area, not
>> the whole STD)
>
>So was there a time when the same call from a number on one exchange to
>another number on the same (or adjacent) exchange was charged at a
>different rate depending on whether you used to local code or the STD
>code? I'd always understood that the call charge and the routing was the
>same either way, but maybe the call that used the STD code was routed by
>a longer distance via the nearest trunk routing point and so was charged
>differently.

I didn't think so. I thought the STD code went through a translator
that converted it to the appropriate routing code for the exchange,
which would be exactly the same as the local code.

On 02/09/2023 23:57, NY wrote:
> On 02/09/2023 10:16, Theo wrote:
>> Local codes were a separate issue from local call rates - I think towards
>> the end of local codes the pricing was the same when using the local code
>> and the STD.  (and the local code went to an exchange in an STD area, not
>> the whole STD)
>
> So was there a time when the same call from a number on one exchange to
> another number on the same (or adjacent) exchange was charged at a
> different rate depending on whether you used to local code or the STD
> code? I'd always understood that the call charge and the routing was the
> same either way, but maybe the call that used the STD code was routed by
> a longer distance via the nearest trunk routing point and so was charged
> differently.

IIRC the charge did not vary. There were merely two ways to dial the
same number ads there still are.

--
"When one man dies it's a tragedy. When thousands die it's statistics."

Josef Stalin

"The Natural Philosopher" <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote in message
news:ud42lu$1bq38$1@dont-email.me...
> On 02/09/2023 23:57, NY wrote:
>> On 02/09/2023 10:16, Theo wrote:
>>> Local codes were a separate issue from local call rates - I think
>>> towards
>>> the end of local codes the pricing was the same when using the local
>>> code
>>> and the STD. (and the local code went to an exchange in an STD area,
>>> not
>>> the whole STD)
>>
>> So was there a time when the same call from a number on one exchange to
>> another number on the same (or adjacent) exchange was charged at a
>> different rate depending on whether you used to local code or the STD
>> code? I'd always understood that the call charge and the routing was the
>> same either way, but maybe the call that used the STD code was routed by
>> a longer distance via the nearest trunk routing point and so was charged
>> differently.
>
> IIRC the charge did not vary. There were merely two ways to dial the same
> number anf there still are.

Although nowadays there are no local codes from one exchange to a
neighbouring one. So the only options are to dial the local number if it's
on the same exchange as yours or to precede this with the STD code. OK,
there is the extreme case of preceding the STD code with the +44 as if it
were an international number. ;-)

On Mon, 4 Sep 2023 12:56:31 +0100, "NY" <me@privacy.invalid> wrote:

>"The Natural Philosopher" <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote in message
>news:ud42lu$1bq38$1@dont-email.me...
>> On 02/09/2023 23:57, NY wrote:
>>> On 02/09/2023 10:16, Theo wrote:
>>>> Local codes were a separate issue from local call rates - I think
>>>> towards
>>>> the end of local codes the pricing was the same when using the local
>>>> code
>>>> and the STD. (and the local code went to an exchange in an STD area,
>>>> not
>>>> the whole STD)
>>>
>>> So was there a time when the same call from a number on one exchange to
>>> another number on the same (or adjacent) exchange was charged at a
>>> different rate depending on whether you used to local code or the STD
>>> code? I'd always understood that the call charge and the routing was the
>>> same either way, but maybe the call that used the STD code was routed by
>>> a longer distance via the nearest trunk routing point and so was charged
>>> differently.
>>
>> IIRC the charge did not vary. There were merely two ways to dial the same
>> number anf there still are.
>
>Although nowadays there are no local codes from one exchange to a
>neighbouring one. So the only options are to dial the local number if it's
>on the same exchange as yours or to precede this with the STD code. OK,
>there is the extreme case of preceding the STD code with the +44 as if it
>were an international number. ;-)

Omitting the area code is being phased out - already the full number must be dialled in areas short
of numbers such as Bournemouth, and from digital voice lines. It would be possible to program
handsets with a feature to automatically prepend the area code of your choice unless you dial a
number commencing 0, 1, or 999 but it's hardly worth it.

"Codger" <codger524@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:gmacfid82ilkhq4cbp72gmhprlk5tpcm03@4ax.com...
> Omitting the area code is being phased out - already the full number must
> be dialled in areas short
> of numbers such as Bournemouth, and from digital voice lines. It would be
> possible to program
> handsets with a feature to automatically prepend the area code of your
> choice unless you dial a
> number commencing 0, 1, or 999 but it's hardly worth it.

All the numbers that I've programmed into the memory of our DECT phones use
full STD code. I meant that when we moved house, we could just the same
memory entries, without having to reprogram any that used to be local and
were no longer local.

With DTMF, it takes very little extra time to dial five extra digits from an
automatic memory.

If I'm dialling a local number by hand (ie not using a memory entry) I
usually omit the code if I know I can, but that's because I'm lazy.

On 04/09/2023 20:14, Codger wrote:
>
> Omitting the area code is being phased out - already the full number must be dialled in areas short
> of numbers such as Bournemouth, and from digital voice lines. It would be possible to program
> handsets with a feature to automatically prepend the area code of your choice unless you dial a
> number commencing 0, 1, or 999 but it's hardly worth it.

For BT digital voice, it takes 6 digits before I hear 'local numbers are
no longer supported on your service...'. It would be possible for BT to...

On 04/09/2023 20:36, NY wrote:
> "Codger" <codger524@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:gmacfid82ilkhq4cbp72gmhprlk5tpcm03@4ax.com...
>> Omitting the area code is being phased out - already the full number
>> must be dialled in areas short
>> of numbers such as Bournemouth, and from digital voice lines.  It
>> would be possible to program
>> handsets with a feature to automatically prepend the area code of your
>> choice unless you dial a
>> number commencing 0, 1, or 999 but it's hardly worth it.
>
> All the numbers that I've programmed into the memory of our DECT phones
> use full STD code. I meant that when we moved house, we could just the
> same memory entries, without having to reprogram any that used to be
> local and were no longer local.
>
Everybody is going that way, and anyway mobiles don't understand local
codes.

> With DTMF, it takes very little extra time to dial five extra digits
> from an automatic memory.
>
> If I'm dialling a local number by hand (ie not using a memory entry) I
> usually omit the code if I know I can, but that's because I'm lazy.

Exactly.
--
Climate Change: Socialism wearing a lab coat.