Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > comp.mobile.android > #59440 > unrolled thread

use of the plus sign

Back to article view | Back to comp.mobile.android

Contents

  use of the plus sign micky <NONONOmisc07@bigfoot.com> - 2019-01-29 04:47 -0500
    Re: use of the plus sign Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk> - 2019-01-29 10:05 +0000
      Re: use of the plus sign Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk> - 2019-01-29 10:11 +0000
        Re: use of the plus sign micky <NONONOmisc07@bigfoot.com> - 2019-01-29 06:55 -0500
      Re: use of the plus sign "NY" <me@privacy.net> - 2019-02-01 10:45 +0000
        Re: use of the plus sign Lars Enderin <lars.enderin@telia.com> - 2019-02-01 12:07 +0100
          Re: use of the plus sign "NY" <me@privacy.net> - 2019-02-01 11:54 +0000
            Re: use of the plus sign micky <NONONOmisc07@bigfoot.com> - 2019-02-01 10:17 -0500
            Re: use of the plus sign Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> - 2019-02-01 15:28 +0000
              Re: use of the plus sign "NY" <me@privacy.net> - 2019-02-01 16:58 +0000
                Re: use of the plus sign Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk> - 2019-02-01 17:29 +0000
                Re: use of the plus sign "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2019-02-01 18:53 +0100
                  Re: use of the plus sign "NY" <me@privacy.net> - 2019-02-01 18:05 +0000
                    Re: use of the plus sign "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2019-02-01 19:59 +0100
                Re: use of the plus sign Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> - 2019-02-01 21:09 +0000
                  Re: use of the plus sign Chris <ithinkiam@gmail.com> - 2019-02-01 22:08 +0000
                    Re: use of the plus sign micky <NONONOmisc07@bigfoot.com> - 2019-02-02 00:21 -0500
                      Re: use of the plus sign Chris <ithinkiam@gmail.com> - 2019-02-02 09:23 +0000
                  Re: use of the plus sign "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2019-02-01 23:22 +0100
                  Re: use of the plus sign Theo <theom+news@chiark.greenend.org.uk> - 2019-02-02 19:27 +0000
              Re: use of the plus sign Chris <ithinkiam@gmail.com> - 2019-02-01 21:58 +0000
              Re: use of the plus sign Piet <www.godfatherof.nl/@opt-in.invalid> - 2019-02-02 11:12 +0100
                Re: use of the plus sign Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> - 2019-02-02 18:04 +0000
                Re: use of the plus sign Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk> - 2019-02-02 18:12 +0000
                Re: use of the plus sign "NY" <me@privacy.net> - 2019-02-02 19:52 +0000
                  Re: use of the plus sign nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2019-02-02 15:23 -0500
        Re: use of the plus sign "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2019-02-01 14:00 +0100
    Re: use of the plus sign "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2019-01-29 13:20 +0100
      Re: use of the plus sign micky <NONONOmisc07@bigfoot.com> - 2019-01-30 07:51 -0500
    Re: use of the plus sign Chris in Makati <mail@nospam.com> - 2019-01-29 13:54 +0000
    Re: use of the plus sign Joerg Lorenz <hugybear@gmx.ch> - 2019-01-29 18:00 +0100
    Re: use of the plus sign Ralph Fox <-rf-nz-@-.invalid> - 2019-02-02 07:34 +1300

Page 1 of 2  [1] 2  Next page →

#59440 — use of the plus sign

If you call a local phone number, but precede the number with the
international calling code at your location, and the country code at
your location, will a cellular company consider the call an
international call for billing purposes. 

For example, if I were to call 202-123-4567, a phone number in NYC,
while I was in NYC, and I used an entry in my contact list to do it, and
the entry had the number as 011-1-202-123-4567, would the phone company
and the cellular company note that I'm calling FROM country 1 TO country
1?  And therefore it's not actually an international call, and they
would treat it as if I had dialed 202-123-4567, as a local call for
billing purposes? 

Is your answer a general rule, is this the same throughout the world, or
at least where the readers here live? 


---------------
AIUI the plus sign in front of phone numbers has two purposes: 

1) So that you can call that number from any place in the world without
knowing the international calling code used in the country you are
calling from. 

2) So you don't have to have two or more entries for one person in your
phone.  Were it not for the plus sign, you might have to have many
entries, one for each int. calling code in use in areas from which you
might try to call that person's phone. 

So you might need 011-44-020-456-7890 to call a number in the UK from
the US
  but you'd need 00-44-020-456-7890 to call a number in the UK from
Spain.

If you called the same number from many regions you'd need either many
entries or you'd have to dial the number by hand. 

It would be nice if you could just tap out the int.code by hand and then
type the entry for the person your calling but afaik, no cell phone
works that way, for whatsapp or for celllular calling. And afaik also no
wired phone allows one to dial by hand and then push a memory button to
finish dialing. 

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#59441

micky wrote:

> if I were to call 202-123-4567, a phone number in NYC,
> while I was in NYC, and I used an entry in my contact list to do it, and
> the entry had the number as 011-1-202-123-4567, would the phone company
> and the cellular company note that I'm calling FROM country 1 TO country
> 1?  And therefore it's not actually an international call

yes, which is why international travellers will generally enter all 
numbers into their mobile phones in + format

> So you might need 011-44-020-456-7890 to call a number in the UK from
> the US
>    but you'd need 00-44-020-456-7890 to call a number in the UK from
> Spain.

The 00 as the international dialling prefix holds true for most/all(?) 
of europe, but the 0 after the country code 44 for the UK should be 
omitted, some people tend to write it as

+44 (0)20 4567890

but it isn't an official format, and not everyone would know to omit the 
zero when dialling internationally, but leave it in when dialling 
nationally.

USA (and other NANP countries) live in a slightly odd bubble where the 
country code "1" and the long distance prefix "1" are the same.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#59442

Andy Burns wrote:

> you might need 011-44-020-456-7890 to call a number in the UK from
> the US
>     but you'd need 00-44-020-456-7890 to call a number in the UK from
> Spain.

So enter it into the mobile phone as +44204567890

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#59445

In comp.mobile.android, on Tue, 29 Jan 2019 10:11:14 +0000, Andy Burns
<usenet@andyburns.uk> wrote:

>Andy Burns wrote:
>
>> you might need 011-44-020-456-7890 to call a number in the UK from
>> the US
>>     but you'd need 00-44-020-456-7890 to call a number in the UK from
>> Spain.
>
>So enter it into the mobile phone as +44204567890

Thanks for both posts.   That's what I thought.  When I first got a
smart phone and put a foreign number in the contact list, and then went
there, I knew nothing about + and had two entries, and two entries for
tne one number back home that I called.  It took a year or two I think
to notice + and figure out what to do with it.  

In another forum, someone was trying to tell me it was only for cell
phones and its purpose was, with the country code, to prevent overlap
between identical numbers in more than one county.   Well yes, that's
the purpose of the country code but nothing to do with the plus. Like
me, she had figured out what it meant, except she got it wrong. 

For those who want to know all the international calling codes (there's
another word for that), take a look at
https://wikitravel.org/en/International_dialling_prefix

There are 19, some of which have more than one code within them.  I
suppose if  you're in aplace that has 001, 002, and 008, for example,
one number has priority when using the plus sign.  Or maybe it rotates,
not my concern. 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#59524

"Andy Burns" <usenet@andyburns.uk> wrote in message 
news:gbamr0FtkdkU1@mid.individual.net...
> micky wrote:
>
>> if I were to call 202-123-4567, a phone number in NYC,
>> while I was in NYC, and I used an entry in my contact list to do it, and
>> the entry had the number as 011-1-202-123-4567, would the phone company
>> and the cellular company note that I'm calling FROM country 1 TO country
>> 1?  And therefore it's not actually an international call
>
> yes, which is why international travellers will generally enter all 
> numbers into their mobile phones in + format
>
>> So you might need 011-44-020-456-7890 to call a number in the UK from
>> the US
>>    but you'd need 00-44-020-456-7890 to call a number in the UK from
>> Spain.
>
> The 00 as the international dialling prefix holds true for most/all(?) of 
> europe, but the 0 after the country code 44 for the UK should be omitted, 
> some people tend to write it as
>
> +44 (0)20 4567890
>
> but it isn't an official format, and not everyone would know to omit the 
> zero when dialling internationally, but leave it in when dialling 
> nationally.

It is a great shame that here in the UK our exchanges can't be programmed so 
that incoming international calls automatically drop a zero (if any) that 
immediately follows the 44 country code, on the ground that no STD (national 
area) code starts with a zero.

That would avoid having to faff around with writing numbers as:

+44 (0)20 4567890

or (the BT preferred format)

020 4567890 (national)
+44 20 4567890 (international)

I wonder if there are any other countries which start all their national 
area codes with a digit which *must* be dialled for calls within that 
country and which *must not* be dialled for calls from outside that country. 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#59525

2019-02-01 11:45 skrev  NY:
> I wonder if there are any other countries which start all their national
> area codes with a digit which *must* be dialled for calls within that
> country and which *must not* be dialled for calls from outside that
> country.

Swedish area codes start with a zero inside Sweden.

-- 
Lars Enderin

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#59526

"Lars Enderin" <lars.enderin@telia.com> wrote in message 
news:72662561-2c3c-dc81-5b61-4622b13b7eff@telia.com...
> 2019-02-01 11:45 skrev  NY:
>> I wonder if there are any other countries which start all their national
>> area codes with a digit which *must* be dialled for calls within that
>> country and which *must not* be dialled for calls from outside that
>> country.
>
> Swedish area codes start with a zero inside Sweden.

What advice is given to Swedish people about quoting phone numbers so they 
can be dialled both from within and outside Sweden? Do they put the 0 in 
brackets or do they list two formats of the number? I'm interested whether 
they solve the problem in the same way as the UK does. 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#59533

In comp.mobile.android, on Fri, 1 Feb 2019 11:54:59 -0000, "NY"
<me@privacy.net> wrote:

>"Lars Enderin" <lars.enderin@telia.com> wrote in message 
>news:72662561-2c3c-dc81-5b61-4622b13b7eff@telia.com...
>> 2019-02-01 11:45 skrev  NY:
>>> I wonder if there are any other countries which start all their national
>>> area codes with a digit which *must* be dialled for calls within that
>>> country and which *must not* be dialled for calls from outside that
>>> country.

Israel   I haven't tried including the zero in an international call.
People told me not to use it, but I'm always optimistic and think things
will work even if I'm told they dont.   So the answer is still, Israel. 

>> Swedish area codes start with a zero inside Sweden.
>
>What advice is given to Swedish people about quoting phone numbers so they 
>can be dialled both from within and outside Sweden? 

In Israel, they say, Don't use the zero when calling from outside the
country.   :-)   It was one of the first things someone told me. 

Oh, you mean when it's not in person, when they just write the number.
I'll look .   Okay, here's a typical one  +(972) 9 748 26nn where nn are
numbers.

Yes, I wrote ecverything that is below and then  realized that the
answer to your question is that by including the + and the area code,
the 0 prefix is not needed, so that's the way phone numbers are given.
When dialing one by hand, if he is in Israel instead of +972, he'll
probably dial 0 and the area code and the number.   Or just the number. 

But for both it's the full length, so you only need one entry in your
contact list. 


Not counting the zero, major area codes are 1 digit, minor (which are
smaller cities), are 2 digits.

If you are calling within an area, you don't need the 0 or the area
code. (Wikipedia shows that as an actual format, like (0A)372-XXXX, but
I think that is for illustration by the authors of the wikip artice and
not necessarily what anyone would use.  And not only that it's
distinguishing two kinds of domestic calls, not domestic vs.
international.)

Reading what wikip has to say:   Since VOIP and porting back and forth,
phone number area codes no longer give certainty where the phone is
located (like in the US)

"Area" codes for cell phones are two digits starting with 5 and a second
number that indicates which cellular company they use. For cell phones
the area code does not indicate the area, that's why they've started
calling them prefixes. (Well, when they're using English.)  Area codes
are to be added to landlines only. 

But due to porting a mobile number that indicates one company can
actally be associated with a different one!  This might matter if one
were trying to send an email text to a cellular phone.  In the USA at
least that means you can type on a real keyboard and save your texts
with your emails, but you have to know what carrier the destination is
using   This could confuse things, except I wonder if anyone actually
emails their texts?

Wikip calls the area code a prefix, because they seem to have added
meaning now, not just geographical area.  Acc. to them Israel has a
prefix for voice mail and for "fax box".  I don't understand.  When I
call someone and they're not there, I get a recording to leave a message
like anywhere.  Are they 
saying the way to retrieve messages is to use the prefix 151 and maybe
the same phone number?  If one included the original area code too, that
might work. 

The international calling prefix, from israel to the rest of the world,
is 01n, where n determines which carrier you use. 

In another post I mentioned that several countries had mulitple int
calling codes and suggested if you used 00 one always got priority or
they rotated, but here it says you can only use 00 or + if you've
registered, that is, which carrier you want to use.   That was a third
choice I didn't think of, and I'll bet it's used everywhere there are
multiple int. calling codes. 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Telephone_numbers_in_Israel

https://www.howtocallabroad.com/israel/

>Do they put the 0 in 
>brackets or do they list two formats of the number? I'm interested whether 
>they solve the problem in the same way as the UK does. 

Neither. They give the full international number and Israelis know they
can dial 0 - area code - number.  

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#59534

NY <me@privacy.net> wrote:
> "Lars Enderin" <lars.enderin@telia.com> wrote in message 
> news:72662561-2c3c-dc81-5b61-4622b13b7eff@telia.com...
> > 2019-02-01 11:45 skrev  NY:
> >> I wonder if there are any other countries which start all their national
> >> area codes with a digit which *must* be dialled for calls within that
> >> country and which *must not* be dialled for calls from outside that
> >> country.
> >
> > Swedish area codes start with a zero inside Sweden.
> 
> What advice is given to Swedish people about quoting phone numbers so they 
> can be dialled both from within and outside Sweden? Do they put the 0 in 
> brackets or do they list two formats of the number? I'm interested whether 
> they solve the problem in the same way as the UK does. 

  Same problem and same solution (0 in brackets) in The Netherlands.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#59535

"Frank Slootweg" <this@ddress.is.invalid> wrote in message 
news:q31s3j.cg8.1@ID-201911.user.individual.net...
> NY <me@privacy.net> wrote:
>> "Lars Enderin" <lars.enderin@telia.com> wrote in message
>> news:72662561-2c3c-dc81-5b61-4622b13b7eff@telia.com...
>> > 2019-02-01 11:45 skrev  NY:
>> >> I wonder if there are any other countries which start all their 
>> >> national
>> >> area codes with a digit which *must* be dialled for calls within that
>> >> country and which *must not* be dialled for calls from outside that
>> >> country.
>> >
>> > Swedish area codes start with a zero inside Sweden.
>>
>> What advice is given to Swedish people about quoting phone numbers so 
>> they
>> can be dialled both from within and outside Sweden? Do they put the 0 in
>> brackets or do they list two formats of the number? I'm interested 
>> whether
>> they solve the problem in the same way as the UK does.
>
>  Same problem and same solution (0 in brackets) in The Netherlands.

What intrigues me is that several countries (UK, Sweden, Netherlands, 
Israel) have the same issue of a leading digit which is dialled within the 
country but not from abroad, and yet none have done the obvious thing of 
reprogramming their exchanges so that if a call arrives at an exchange from 
overseas as opposed to another exchange within the country and the first 
digit after the country code (eg 44 of UK) is a zero, discard that zero 
before passing the rest of the digits onto the normal exchange selection 
code.

That would mean that +44 01296 xxxxx and +44 1296 xxxxxx would be identical, 
and avoid all the faffing around with telling people to dial two different 
numbers (ignoring the extra +44) depending on whether or not they were 
calling from abroad.

Apart from the one-off work of implementing that change, is there a 
fundamental disadvantage with doing it? I presume there must be, otherwise 
*surely* they would have done it by now. 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#59536

NY wrote:

> What intrigues me is that several countries (UK, Sweden, Netherlands, 
> Israel) have the same issue of a leading digit which is dialled within 
> the country but not from abroad

The UK has another oddity, normally you dial 00 as the international 
prefix, but if you dial 000 you can make an ISDN call that's guaranteed 
to be 8-bit clean end-to-end (i.e. no robbed-bit signalling) but you'll 
pay extra.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#59539

On 01/02/2019 17.58, NY wrote:
> "Frank Slootweg" <this@ddress.is.invalid> wrote in message
> news:q31s3j.cg8.1@ID-201911.user.individual.net...
>> NY <me@privacy.net> wrote:
>>> "Lars Enderin" <lars.enderin@telia.com> wrote in message
>>> news:72662561-2c3c-dc81-5b61-4622b13b7eff@telia.com...
>>> > 2019-02-01 11:45 skrev  NY:

...

> What intrigues me is that several countries (UK, Sweden, Netherlands,
> Israel) have the same issue of a leading digit which is dialled within
> the country but not from abroad, and yet none have done the obvious
> thing of reprogramming their exchanges so that if a call arrives at an
> exchange from overseas as opposed to another exchange within the country
> and the first digit after the country code (eg 44 of UK) is a zero,
> discard that zero before passing the rest of the digits onto the normal
> exchange selection code.

The 44 is usually removed by the originating country.

And then the originating country support service gets the question from
clients "I dial +44 01296 xxxxx and I get wrong number - what is going
on? The number is correct". Yes, I was the support person at the inside
second level, those that the talking staff ask the questions from. I saw
that question more than once. Of course, with the usual countries you
learn, but then comes a strange new country and you have to ask further
up or far...

-- 
Cheers, Carlos.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#59540

"Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote in message 
news:fmdeif-42c.ln1@Telcontar.valinor...
> On 01/02/2019 17.58, NY wrote:
>> "Frank Slootweg" <this@ddress.is.invalid> wrote in message
>> news:q31s3j.cg8.1@ID-201911.user.individual.net...
>>> NY <me@privacy.net> wrote:
>>>> "Lars Enderin" <lars.enderin@telia.com> wrote in message
>>>> news:72662561-2c3c-dc81-5b61-4622b13b7eff@telia.com...
>>>> > 2019-02-01 11:45 skrev  NY:
>
> ...
>
>> What intrigues me is that several countries (UK, Sweden, Netherlands,
>> Israel) have the same issue of a leading digit which is dialled within
>> the country but not from abroad, and yet none have done the obvious
>> thing of reprogramming their exchanges so that if a call arrives at an
>> exchange from overseas as opposed to another exchange within the country
>> and the first digit after the country code (eg 44 of UK) is a zero,
>> discard that zero before passing the rest of the digits onto the normal
>> exchange selection code.
>
> The 44 is usually removed by the originating country.
>
> And then the originating country support service gets the question from
> clients "I dial +44 01296 xxxxx and I get wrong number - what is going
> on? The number is correct". Yes, I was the support person at the inside
> second level, those that the talking staff ask the questions from. I saw
> that question more than once. Of course, with the usual countries you
> learn, but then comes a strange new country and you have to ask further
> up or far...

But the destination country can always distinguish between a call that has 
originated within the country and one that has originated outside - can't 
it? So it can always know whether or nor to strip off a leading zero (or 
treat it as optional, which amounts to the same thing). So why isn't that 
done? With modern exchanges using software rather than mechanical rotary 
switches to decode and route the call, surely it's a comparatively easy 
thing to build into a release of the exchange software. After all, they 
managed to introduce an extra 1 into the codes for most exchanges, and to 
handle migration from 01 xxx xxxx to 071 xxx xxxx to 0171 xxx xxxx to 020 
7xxx xxxx for London numbers, so stripping off a zero should be simple.

There's evidently a problem with doing it that hasn't occurred to me, so I'm 
intrigued to know what it might be. 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#59544

On 01/02/2019 19.05, NY wrote:
> "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote in message
> news:fmdeif-42c.ln1@Telcontar.valinor...
>> On 01/02/2019 17.58, NY wrote:
>>> "Frank Slootweg" <this@ddress.is.invalid> wrote in message
>>> news:q31s3j.cg8.1@ID-201911.user.individual.net...
>>>> NY <me@privacy.net> wrote:
>>>>> "Lars Enderin" <lars.enderin@telia.com> wrote in message
>>>>> news:72662561-2c3c-dc81-5b61-4622b13b7eff@telia.com...
>>>>> > 2019-02-01 11:45 skrev  NY:
>>
>> ...
>>
>>> What intrigues me is that several countries (UK, Sweden, Netherlands,
>>> Israel) have the same issue of a leading digit which is dialled within
>>> the country but not from abroad, and yet none have done the obvious
>>> thing of reprogramming their exchanges so that if a call arrives at an
>>> exchange from overseas as opposed to another exchange within the country
>>> and the first digit after the country code (eg 44 of UK) is a zero,
>>> discard that zero before passing the rest of the digits onto the normal
>>> exchange selection code.
>>
>> The 44 is usually removed by the originating country.
>>
>> And then the originating country support service gets the question from
>> clients "I dial +44 01296 xxxxx and I get wrong number - what is going
>> on? The number is correct". Yes, I was the support person at the inside
>> second level, those that the talking staff ask the questions from. I saw
>> that question more than once. Of course, with the usual countries you
>> learn, but then comes a strange new country and you have to ask further
>> up or far...
> 
> But the destination country can always distinguish between a call that
> has originated within the country and one that has originated outside -
> can't it?

Yes. They know because they enter via a different "cable".

Routing is fixed, not dynamic. They know were each "cable" comes from
and what calls it can carry. I'm saying cable but the term is "route",
and it can be a bunch of cables, or slots in some transmission system.

And the routing tables take into account the route the call is coming from.


> So it can always know whether or nor to strip off a leading
> zero (or treat it as optional, which amounts to the same thing). So why
> isn't that done?

It is an interesting question. But not having worked in Britain, I have
no idea why they added that zero, what is the purpose. I suppose there
is some simplification in the routing that assumes the zero is there.

Spain was like that when I started work in telephone, but with a 9. If
there was a starting nine, the assumption was an area code was
following. Ie, it worked as area prefix indicator, and if not (and not a
zero) it was a same area number.


> With modern exchanges using software rather than
> mechanical rotary switches to decode and route the call, surely it's a
> comparatively easy thing to build into a release of the exchange
> software. 

LOL, no. Modern digital exchanges can be designs from the 80's, with
very limited computing power (as compared to your desktop computer).
There is no intention to modernize them, instead they are being replaced
with VoIP systems (of which I know little of the actual systems used).

On the POT exchanges, upgrading the software is something terribly
expensive. A small exchange could be 60 million euros hardware with
installation, they told me once. A software upgrade, I don't know (over
my pay grade to know), but a huge amount.

> After all, they managed to introduce an extra 1 into the codes
> for most exchanges, and to handle migration from 01 xxx xxxx to 071 xxx
> xxxx to 0171 xxx xxxx to 020 7xxx xxxx for London numbers, so stripping
> off a zero should be simple.
> 
> There's evidently a problem with doing it that hasn't occurred to me, so
> I'm intrigued to know what it might be.

Same here, but there surely is something :-)

Consider too that when a change to the numbering plan is applied, they
have to give an a hour:minute:second to apply it, and hope there are no
errors, that service remains working.  Basically they prepare the tables
at all the exchanges, and hit commands at some instant to apply.
Designing the tables needs weeks.


All that talk is about the old systems I knew. The moderns ones, VoIP
internally, I don't really know how they are. I don't know about
Britain, but in Spain there is currently a mixture of old and new
systems; there is migration in course, while having to keep compatibility...

Ah, mobile phone exchanges are more modern than the fixed line
exchanges. In Spain, I believe most are Ericsson (AXE?).

-- 
Cheers, Carlos.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#59548

NY <me@privacy.net> wrote:
> "Frank Slootweg" <this@ddress.is.invalid> wrote in message 
> news:q31s3j.cg8.1@ID-201911.user.individual.net...
> > NY <me@privacy.net> wrote:
> >> "Lars Enderin" <lars.enderin@telia.com> wrote in message
> >> news:72662561-2c3c-dc81-5b61-4622b13b7eff@telia.com...
> >> > 2019-02-01 11:45 skrev  NY:
> >> >> I wonder if there are any other countries which start all their 
> >> >> national
> >> >> area codes with a digit which *must* be dialled for calls within that
> >> >> country and which *must not* be dialled for calls from outside that
> >> >> country.
> >> >
> >> > Swedish area codes start with a zero inside Sweden.
> >>
> >> What advice is given to Swedish people about quoting phone numbers so 
> >> they
> >> can be dialled both from within and outside Sweden? Do they put the 0 in
> >> brackets or do they list two formats of the number? I'm interested 
> >> whether
> >> they solve the problem in the same way as the UK does.
> >
> >  Same problem and same solution (0 in brackets) in The Netherlands.
> 
> What intrigues me is that several countries (UK, Sweden, Netherlands, 
> Israel) have the same issue of a leading digit which is dialled within the 
> country but not from abroad, and yet none have done the obvious thing of 
> reprogramming their exchanges so that if a call arrives at an exchange from 
> overseas as opposed to another exchange within the country and the first 
> digit after the country code (eg 44 of UK) is a zero, discard that zero 
> before passing the rest of the digits onto the normal exchange selection 
> code.
> 
> That would mean that +44 01296 xxxxx and +44 1296 xxxxxx would be identical, 
> and avoid all the faffing around with telling people to dial two different 
> numbers (ignoring the extra +44) depending on whether or not they were 
> calling from abroad.
> 
> Apart from the one-off work of implementing that change, is there a 
> fundamental disadvantage with doing it? I presume there must be, otherwise 
> *surely* they would have done it by now. 

  I am probably (surely? :-)) out of my league and Carlos probably knows
more about this, but this page

<https://countrycode.org/uk>

seems to imply that +44 0XX is used for UK toll free calling.

  If that's true, anyone with a 0[81|00|09|03] xxx.. UK number would be
unreachable, when people would use +44 0... from outside the UK.

(The Dutch situation seems similar <https://countrycode.org/netherlands>.
And so is the situation for the other mentioned '0-country', Sweden.)

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#59550

Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> wrote:
> NY <me@privacy.net> wrote:
>> "Frank Slootweg" <this@ddress.is.invalid> wrote in message 
>> news:q31s3j.cg8.1@ID-201911.user.individual.net...
>>> NY <me@privacy.net> wrote:
>>>> "Lars Enderin" <lars.enderin@telia.com> wrote in message
>>>> news:72662561-2c3c-dc81-5b61-4622b13b7eff@telia.com...
>>>>> 2019-02-01 11:45 skrev  NY:
>>>>>> I wonder if there are any other countries which start all their 
>>>>>> national
>>>>>> area codes with a digit which *must* be dialled for calls within that
>>>>>> country and which *must not* be dialled for calls from outside that
>>>>>> country.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Swedish area codes start with a zero inside Sweden.
>>>> 
>>>> What advice is given to Swedish people about quoting phone numbers so 
>>>> they
>>>> can be dialled both from within and outside Sweden? Do they put the 0 in
>>>> brackets or do they list two formats of the number? I'm interested 
>>>> whether
>>>> they solve the problem in the same way as the UK does.
>>> 
>>> Same problem and same solution (0 in brackets) in The Netherlands.
>> 
>> What intrigues me is that several countries (UK, Sweden, Netherlands, 
>> Israel) have the same issue of a leading digit which is dialled within the 
>> country but not from abroad, and yet none have done the obvious thing of 
>> reprogramming their exchanges so that if a call arrives at an exchange from 
>> overseas as opposed to another exchange within the country and the first 
>> digit after the country code (eg 44 of UK) is a zero, discard that zero 
>> before passing the rest of the digits onto the normal exchange selection 
>> code.
>> 
>> That would mean that +44 01296 xxxxx and +44 1296 xxxxxx would be identical, 
>> and avoid all the faffing around with telling people to dial two different 
>> numbers (ignoring the extra +44) depending on whether or not they were 
>> calling from abroad.
>> 
>> Apart from the one-off work of implementing that change, is there a 
>> fundamental disadvantage with doing it? I presume there must be, otherwise 
>> *surely* they would have done it by now. 
> 
>   I am probably (surely? :-)) out of my league and Carlos probably knows
> more about this, but this page
> 
> <https://countrycode.org/uk>
> 
> seems to imply that +44 0XX is used for UK toll free calling.
>
>   If that's true, anyone with a 0[81|00|09|03] xxx.. UK number would be
> unreachable, when people would use +44 0... from outside the UK.

Yep. They're called non-geographical numbers and indeed you can't call them
from outside the country. 

Which is a pain as it's almost impossible to call some organisations from
abroad. 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#59558

In comp.mobile.android, on Fri, 1 Feb 2019 22:08:27 -0000 (UTC), Chris
<ithinkiam@gmail.com> wrote:

>Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> wrote:
>> NY <me@privacy.net> wrote:
>>> "Frank Slootweg" <this@ddress.is.invalid> wrote in message 
>>> news:q31s3j.cg8.1@ID-201911.user.individual.net...
>>>> NY <me@privacy.net> wrote:
>>>>> "Lars Enderin" <lars.enderin@telia.com> wrote in message
>>>>> news:72662561-2c3c-dc81-5b61-4622b13b7eff@telia.com...
>>>>>> 2019-02-01 11:45 skrev  NY:
>>>>>>> I wonder if there are any other countries which start all their 
>>>>>>> national
>>>>>>> area codes with a digit which *must* be dialled for calls within that
>>>>>>> country and which *must not* be dialled for calls from outside that
>>>>>>> country.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Swedish area codes start with a zero inside Sweden.
>>>>> 
>>>>> What advice is given to Swedish people about quoting phone numbers so 
>>>>> they
>>>>> can be dialled both from within and outside Sweden? Do they put the 0 in
>>>>> brackets or do they list two formats of the number? I'm interested 
>>>>> whether
>>>>> they solve the problem in the same way as the UK does.
>>>> 
>>>> Same problem and same solution (0 in brackets) in The Netherlands.
>>> 
>>> What intrigues me is that several countries (UK, Sweden, Netherlands, 
>>> Israel) have the same issue of a leading digit which is dialled within the 
>>> country but not from abroad, and yet none have done the obvious thing of 
>>> reprogramming their exchanges so that if a call arrives at an exchange from 
>>> overseas as opposed to another exchange within the country and the first 
>>> digit after the country code (eg 44 of UK) is a zero, discard that zero 
>>> before passing the rest of the digits onto the normal exchange selection 
>>> code.
>>> 
>>> That would mean that +44 01296 xxxxx and +44 1296 xxxxxx would be identical, 
>>> and avoid all the faffing around with telling people to dial two different 
>>> numbers (ignoring the extra +44) depending on whether or not they were 
>>> calling from abroad.
>>> 
>>> Apart from the one-off work of implementing that change, is there a 
>>> fundamental disadvantage with doing it? I presume there must be, otherwise 
>>> *surely* they would have done it by now. 
>> 
>>   I am probably (surely? :-)) out of my league and Carlos probably knows
>> more about this, but this page
>> 
>> <https://countrycode.org/uk>
>> 
>> seems to imply that +44 0XX is used for UK toll free calling.
>>
>>   If that's true, anyone with a 0[81|00|09|03] xxx.. UK number would be
>> unreachable, when people would use +44 0... from outside the UK.
>
>Yep. They're called non-geographical numbers and indeed you can't call them
>from outside the country. 
>
>Which is a pain as it's almost impossible to call some organisations from
>abroad. 

Have you tried Skype? 

Did you see what Carlos said to me, in this very thread I think, about
how skype uses the country code to find a gateway in the country you are
calling and after that it appears to the system that you are calling
from the country you are calling.   It worked for me, to call an 800
number in the US, for a bank that published: an 800 number for US
customers, and a toll-number for international calls.   Yet I could
callthe 800 number. 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#59561

micky <NONONOmisc07@bigfoot.com> wrote:
> In comp.mobile.android, on Fri, 1 Feb 2019 22:08:27 -0000 (UTC), Chris
> <ithinkiam@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
>> Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> wrote:
>>> NY <me@privacy.net> wrote:
>>>> "Frank Slootweg" <this@ddress.is.invalid> wrote in message 
>>>> news:q31s3j.cg8.1@ID-201911.user.individual.net...
>>>>> NY <me@privacy.net> wrote:
>>>>>> "Lars Enderin" <lars.enderin@telia.com> wrote in message
>>>>>> news:72662561-2c3c-dc81-5b61-4622b13b7eff@telia.com...
>>>>>>> 2019-02-01 11:45 skrev  NY:
>>>>>>>> I wonder if there are any other countries which start all their 
>>>>>>>> national
>>>>>>>> area codes with a digit which *must* be dialled for calls within that
>>>>>>>> country and which *must not* be dialled for calls from outside that
>>>>>>>> country.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Swedish area codes start with a zero inside Sweden.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> What advice is given to Swedish people about quoting phone numbers so 
>>>>>> they
>>>>>> can be dialled both from within and outside Sweden? Do they put the 0 in
>>>>>> brackets or do they list two formats of the number? I'm interested 
>>>>>> whether
>>>>>> they solve the problem in the same way as the UK does.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Same problem and same solution (0 in brackets) in The Netherlands.
>>>> 
>>>> What intrigues me is that several countries (UK, Sweden, Netherlands, 
>>>> Israel) have the same issue of a leading digit which is dialled within the 
>>>> country but not from abroad, and yet none have done the obvious thing of 
>>>> reprogramming their exchanges so that if a call arrives at an exchange from 
>>>> overseas as opposed to another exchange within the country and the first 
>>>> digit after the country code (eg 44 of UK) is a zero, discard that zero 
>>>> before passing the rest of the digits onto the normal exchange selection 
>>>> code.
>>>> 
>>>> That would mean that +44 01296 xxxxx and +44 1296 xxxxxx would be identical, 
>>>> and avoid all the faffing around with telling people to dial two different 
>>>> numbers (ignoring the extra +44) depending on whether or not they were 
>>>> calling from abroad.
>>>> 
>>>> Apart from the one-off work of implementing that change, is there a 
>>>> fundamental disadvantage with doing it? I presume there must be, otherwise 
>>>> *surely* they would have done it by now. 
>>> 
>>> I am probably (surely? :-)) out of my league and Carlos probably knows
>>> more about this, but this page
>>> 
>>> <https://countrycode.org/uk>
>>> 
>>> seems to imply that +44 0XX is used for UK toll free calling.
>>> 
>>> If that's true, anyone with a 0[81|00|09|03] xxx.. UK number would be
>>> unreachable, when people would use +44 0... from outside the UK.
>> 
>> Yep. They're called non-geographical numbers and indeed you can't call them
>> from outside the country. 
>> 
>> Which is a pain as it's almost impossible to call some organisations from
>> abroad. 
> 
> Have you tried Skype? 

No. I've only ever used it for skype to skype calls. 

> Did you see what Carlos said to me, in this very thread I think, about
> how skype uses the country code to find a gateway in the country you are
> calling and after that it appears to the system that you are calling
> from the country you are calling.   It worked for me, to call an 800
> number in the US, for a bank that published: an 800 number for US
> customers, and a toll-number for international calls.   Yet I could
> callthe 800 number. 

I do have VOIP and may try that next time. Fortunately, most important orgs
have international numbers as well as the free ones. With EU roaming the
calls are included withinmy tariff anyway. 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#59551

On 01/02/2019 22.09, Frank Slootweg wrote:
> NY <me@privacy.net> wrote:
>> "Frank Slootweg" <this@ddress.is.invalid> wrote in message 
>> news:q31s3j.cg8.1@ID-201911.user.individual.net...
>>> NY <me@privacy.net> wrote:
>>>> "Lars Enderin" <lars.enderin@telia.com> wrote in message
>>>> news:72662561-2c3c-dc81-5b61-4622b13b7eff@telia.com...
>>>>> 2019-02-01 11:45 skrev  NY:
>>>>>> I wonder if there are any other countries which start all their 
>>>>>> national
>>>>>> area codes with a digit which *must* be dialled for calls within that
>>>>>> country and which *must not* be dialled for calls from outside that
>>>>>> country.
>>>>>
>>>>> Swedish area codes start with a zero inside Sweden.
>>>>
>>>> What advice is given to Swedish people about quoting phone numbers so 
>>>> they
>>>> can be dialled both from within and outside Sweden? Do they put the 0 in
>>>> brackets or do they list two formats of the number? I'm interested 
>>>> whether
>>>> they solve the problem in the same way as the UK does.
>>>
>>>  Same problem and same solution (0 in brackets) in The Netherlands.
>>
>> What intrigues me is that several countries (UK, Sweden, Netherlands, 
>> Israel) have the same issue of a leading digit which is dialled within the 
>> country but not from abroad, and yet none have done the obvious thing of 
>> reprogramming their exchanges so that if a call arrives at an exchange from 
>> overseas as opposed to another exchange within the country and the first 
>> digit after the country code (eg 44 of UK) is a zero, discard that zero 
>> before passing the rest of the digits onto the normal exchange selection 
>> code.
>>
>> That would mean that +44 01296 xxxxx and +44 1296 xxxxxx would be identical, 
>> and avoid all the faffing around with telling people to dial two different 
>> numbers (ignoring the extra +44) depending on whether or not they were 
>> calling from abroad.
>>
>> Apart from the one-off work of implementing that change, is there a 
>> fundamental disadvantage with doing it? I presume there must be, otherwise 
>> *surely* they would have done it by now. 
> 
>   I am probably (surely? :-)) out of my league and Carlos probably knows
> more about this, but this page
> 
> <https://countrycode.org/uk>
> 
> seems to imply that +44 0XX is used for UK toll free calling.
> 
>   If that's true, anyone with a 0[81|00|09|03] xxx.. UK number would be
> unreachable, when people would use +44 0... from outside the UK.

No, I did not know. I knew the numbering plan for Spain in some depth,
but not the British one. But I knew there would be a reason.

Mind, if they wanted they can re-plan the numbering, changing whatever
numbers would fail to some other combination. The decision is political
rather than technical.

For example, here at one point (1998?) they decided to mandate that all
numbers would be the combination of area code + customer number, having
to dial always the 9 digits even if it is your neighbour. At another
point, they decided to change 3 digit numbers like "004" (customer
service) to 4 digit numbers (1004). The next change was to make "00" the
international prefix - I don't remember what it was previously: 07? Yes,
07, found a source that confirms it. Also mobile phones that started
with 9 were changed to start with 6.

All those changes are costly. It is not only the change itself, but
instructing customers and then handling the mistakes and the angry
people :-)

-- 
Cheers, Carlos.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#59570

Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> wrote:
>   I am probably (surely? :-)) out of my league and Carlos probably knows
> more about this, but this page
> 
> <https://countrycode.org/uk>
> 
> seems to imply that +44 0XX is used for UK toll free calling.

I'm not an expert, but I've never seen that before.  I think that list is
incomplete because it's missing lots of codes.  For example Newcastle upon
Tyne is a large city with the code 0191 (+44191) but that code is attributed
to Durham, a smaller city that also shares that code.  Other smaller codes
(01954, 01730 and likely many others) are missing.  And it doesn't cover the
other major code groups:

03 - non-geographic national
07 - mobile (070='personal numbers')
080 - free (often 0800 or 0808)
084/087 - low-price premium services (0844, 0871)
09 - premium (£1/min or more)

I do wonder if their list of 'national codes' has been derived from the list
above by some kind of database mangling.

Further, their list is dubious because 009 ('UK TOLL FREE 808 - CORP'
according to them) is the start of dialling an international number meaning
Asia (India would be 0091, ie +91).  Similiarly 003 (Greece = 0030).

>   If that's true, anyone with a 0[81|00|09|03] xxx.. UK number would be
> unreachable, when people would use +44 0... from outside the UK.

I've never seen such a number.

Theo

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

Page 1 of 2  [1] 2  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | comp.mobile.android

csiph-web