Fictitious mobile numbers

[Scott]

Am I correct that the number range 07700 900xxx is still officially
designated for use as fictitious numbers?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fictitious_telephone_number#United_Kingdom
Sometimes websites demand a mobile number as an essential field. I
take it I am free to use any of the 07700 900xxx series?

[Andy Burns]

Scott wrote:

> Am I correct that the number range 07700 900xxx is still officially
> designated for use as fictitious numbers?

The numbering spreadsheet says 077009 is "protected"

<https://static.ofcom.org.uk/static/numbering/S7.xlsx>

<https://www.ofcom.org.uk/phones-telecoms-and-internet/information-for-industry/numbering/numbers-for-drama>

[Scott]

On Sat, 13 Nov 2021 16:47:01 +0000, Andy Burns <use...@andyburns.uk>
wrote:

I saw that, but it is dated 2004. I wondered if it remained valid. I
would hate to dump a load of unwanted texts on anyone.

[BrightsideS9]

I have tried a couple of numbers in the range 07700900xxx and get the
"number has not been recognized" message.

If you were to use one in that range then test it first by dialing the
number.

--
brighjtside S9

[Scott]

I would do that of course but I wondered if they could be about to be
released.

[Roger]

On Sun, 14 Nov 2021 09:59:05 +0000, Scott

<newsg...@gefion.myzen.co.uk> wrote:

>On Sun, 14 Nov 2021 09:25:35 +0000, BrightsideS9
><reply_to_ad...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>
>>On Sat, 13 Nov 2021 17:01:15 +0000, Scott
>><newsg...@gefion.myzen.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>>>On Sat, 13 Nov 2021 16:47:01 +0000, Andy Burns <use...@andyburns.uk>
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>>Scott wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Am I correct that the number range 07700 900xxx is still officially
>>>>> designated for use as fictitious numbers?
>>>>
>>>>The numbering spreadsheet says 077009 is "protected"
>>>>
>>>><https://static.ofcom.org.uk/static/numbering/S7.xlsx>
>>>>
>>>><https://www.ofcom.org.uk/phones-telecoms-and-internet/information-for-industry/numbering/numbers-for-drama>
>>>
>>>I saw that, but it is dated 2004. I wondered if it remained valid. I
>>>would hate to dump a load of unwanted texts on anyone.
>>
>>I have tried a couple of numbers in the range 07700900xxx and get the
>>"number has not been recognized" message.
>>
>>If you were to use one in that range then test it first by dialing the
>>number.
>
>I would do that of course but I wondered if they could be about to be
>released.

As Ofcom are in charge of numbers check with them. No one else
can give you an authoritative answer.

Why anyone would even think it a good idea to set aside a number
of ranges for fictitious use and then release them I cannot
imagine.
--
Roger

[Woody]

There's always the old codes that became 7-digit numbers:
Sheffield 0742 (would now clash with mobile numbers)
Tyneside 0632 (which I have seen used)
Nottingham 0602
Leicester 0532
Bristol 0272
Coventry 0203 (would now clash with London numbers)
Reading 0734 (would now clash with mobile numbers)
Southampton 0703 (would now clash with special service numbers)
Portsmouth 0705 (would now clash with special service numbers)
Belfast 0232
Cardiff 0222

Even then it still leaves plenty based on code alone.

[Scott]

On Sun, 14 Nov 2021 11:41:36 +0000, Woody <harro...@ntlworld.com>
wrote:

True, but any sensible site would reject a mobile number not starting
in 07.

[Scott]

On Sun, 14 Nov 2021 11:11:25 +0000, Roger <inv...@invalid.invalid>

I fear their turnaround could be numbered in weeks rather than days.

>
>Why anyone would even think it a good idea to set aside a number
>of ranges for fictitious use and then release them I cannot
>imagine.

Very good point. The number could be used in a film or a TV series
that ends up on Dave years later. I think this would jinx the numbers
for ever.

[Adrian]

In message <smqslh$ll7$1...@dont-email.me>, Woody <harro...@ntlworld.com>
writes

>There's always the old codes that became 7-digit numbers:

>Leicester 0532

Leeds was 0532, Leicester was 0533

Adrian
--
To Reply :
replace "bulleid" with "adrian" - all mail to bulleid is rejected
Sorry for the rigmarole, If I want spam, I'll go to the shops
Every time someone says "I don't believe in trolls", another one dies.

[Roger Mills]

Many sites which demand a mobile number then send a text to it to
validate it. That wouldn't work if it was a fictitious number!
--
Cheers,
Roger
____________
Please reply to Newsgroup. Whilst email address is valid, it is seldom
checked.

[Scott]

On Sun, 14 Nov 2021 21:07:35 +0000, Roger Mills <watt....@gmail.com>
wrote:

>On 13/11/2021 16:37, Scott wrote:
>> Am I correct that the number range 07700 900xxx is still officially
>> designated for use as fictitious numbers?
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fictitious_telephone_number#United_Kingdom
>> Sometimes websites demand a mobile number as an essential field. I
>> take it I am free to use any of the 07700 900xxx series?
>>
>Many sites which demand a mobile number then send a text to it to
>validate it. That wouldn't work if it was a fictitious number!

This is a good point that I had not thought of. I suppose the
solution is to use the real number then go back and 'correct' it to a
fictitious number.

[Chris Green]

But any half decent site will want to verify the new number by sending
a text to it!

--
Chris Green
·

[Woody]

On Sun 14/11/2021 19:52, Adrian wrote:
> In message <smqslh$ll7$1...@dont-email.me>, Woody <harro...@ntlworld.com>
> writes
>> There's always the old codes that became 7-digit numbers:
>> Leicester      0532
>
> Leeds was 0532, Leicester was 0533
>

I'll claim that as a typo, given my office was in Leeds and I lived in
Leicester during and after the time when STD began - albeit it was then
0LE3 rather than 0533!

[Adrian Caspersz]

On 14/11/2021 22:25, Chris Green wrote:

> Scott <newsg...@gefion.myzen.co.uk> wrote:

>> This is a good point that I had not thought of. I suppose the
>> solution is to use the real number then go back and 'correct' it to a
>> fictitious number.
>
> But any half decent site will want to verify the new number by sending
> a text to it!
>

I once worked in a large retail company that embraced the whole Google
for Business culture and demanded their minimum wage employees set up
2FA security to gain access using their own (not company) mobile phones.

Their typical response was ...

"In no way in hell am I giving google my mobile number!!!!"


Other methods of authentication had to be sought.

--
Adrian C

[Scott]

That's my view if I make an online purchase. If I cannot leave the
mobile number blank, I would prefer to use a fictitious one.

[Woody]

Most of such systems (that don't dial back) only check for 10/11 digits,
so I just put the dialling code followed by 1 and all the zeros - and it
works. Strangely enough the systems seem to be set to check the first
digit of the number and if it is 0 they reject it, but any other number
will work.

[Scott]

On Mon, 15 Nov 2021 11:27:30 +0000, Woody <harro...@ntlworld.com>
wrote:

Thanks. That's what I thought. I have never seen any evidence of my
phone being contacted in real time. as I place an order online. I can
do as you suggest, or just use the authorised fictitious number.

[MB]

On 15/11/2021 11:27, Woody wrote:
> Most of such systems (that don't dial back) only check for 10/11 digits,
> so I just put the dialling code followed by 1 and all the zeros - and it
> works. Strangely enough the systems seem to be set to check the first
> digit of the number and if it is 0 they reject it, but any other number
> will work.

I have found similar, many are happy if the number of digits is correct.
But some are more fussy and will not accept landline numbers.

I try to avoid giving out my mobile number and warn people that it might
not be answered, I always prefer landline.

My employer got rid of most of our landline phones and only listed our
(company) mobile phone number. This could mean that you might get a
call from someone in an office at the other end of the country whilst
driving, usually with a trivial question. So the company was switched
to divert to voicemail when driving - that should be an easier access
option especially in the days when the phone was attached to a cradle
in the vehicle.

The mobile was also always switched off the moment I finished work - I
used a pager for 24/7 callouts.

[MB]

On 15/11/2021 11:38, Scott wrote:
> Thanks. That's what I thought. I have never seen any evidence of my
> phone being contacted in real time. as I place an order online. I can
> do as you suggest, or just use the authorised fictitious number.

You will not necessarily see it being contacted, they can possibly just
"ping" it.

[Chris Green]

MB <M...@nospam.net> wrote:
> On 15/11/2021 11:27, Woody wrote:
> > Most of such systems (that don't dial back) only check for 10/11 digits,
> > so I just put the dialling code followed by 1 and all the zeros - and it
> > works. Strangely enough the systems seem to be set to check the first
> > digit of the number and if it is 0 they reject it, but any other number
> > will work.
>
> I have found similar, many are happy if the number of digits is correct.
> But some are more fussy and will not accept landline numbers.
>

Which is annoying if you have a 'landline' (well, "not a mobile")
number that will accept and display SMS.

> I try to avoid giving out my mobile number and warn people that it might
> not be answered, I always prefer landline.
>

Quite, I keep trying to tell people that I don' walk around with my
mobile glued to my ear and, while I'm at home, it's lilkely to be
turned off.

> My employer got rid of most of our landline phones and only listed our
> (company) mobile phone number. This could mean that you might get a
> call from someone in an office at the other end of the country whilst
> driving, usually with a trivial question. So the company was switched
> to divert to voicemail when driving - that should be an easier access
> option especially in the days when the phone was attached to a cradle
> in the vehicle.
>
> The mobile was also always switched off the moment I finished work - I
> used a pager for 24/7 callouts.

I now have a 'virtual mobile' number that's actually a VOIP number,
SMS messages are automatically forwarded to my E-Mail. I now give
this number rather than my actual mobile number to most places that
want/need one.

--
Chris Green
·