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 2 of 2 — ← Prev page 1 [2]

#59549

Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> wrote:
> 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.

Same for France. 

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

#59562

Frank Slootweg wrote:
> NY wrote:
>> Lars Enderin wrote:
>>> NY wrote:
>>>> 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.

Which problem? The notation +31 (0)10 1234567 is ITU-approved:
https://www.itu.int/rec/dologin_pub.asp?lang=e&id=T-REC-E.123-200102-I!!PDF-E&type=items
(items 7.1, 7.2)
https://www.itu.int/rec/dologin_pub.asp?lang=e&id=T-REC-E.123-200102-I!!PDF-S&type=items
for Carlos ;-)

That ITU document has another interesting aspect: it correctly speaks
of "web adresses" instead of the common "internet addresses" nonsense.
Unfortunately it at least *suggests* that a web address always begins
with "www.", which is also common nonsense.

-p

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

#59567

Piet <www.godfatherof.nl/@opt-in.invalid> wrote:
> Frank Slootweg wrote:
> > NY wrote:
> >> Lars Enderin wrote:
> >>> NY wrote:
> >>>> 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.
> 
> Which problem? The notation +31 (0)10 1234567 is ITU-approved:
> https://www.itu.int/rec/dologin_pub.asp?lang=e&id=T-REC-E.123-200102-I!!PDF-E&type=items
> (items 7.1, 7.2)
> https://www.itu.int/rec/dologin_pub.asp?lang=e&id=T-REC-E.123-200102-I!!PDF-S&type=items
> for Carlos ;-)

  The point isn't that it isn't approved/standardized/<whatever>. The
point is that it is confusing/error-prone/ambiguous/irritating/<whatever>.

  OTOH, I initially planned to put scare quotes around "problem" - i.e.
'problem' -, because for *me*, it's a non-problem. But as my gran said:
"It's not all about you, Frank!" :-)

[...]

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

#59569

Piet wrote:

> Frank Slootweg wrote:
>
>> Same problem and same solution (0 in brackets) in The Netherlands.
> 
> Which problem? The notation +31 (0)10 1234567 is ITU-approved:
> https://www.itu.int/rec/dologin_pub.asp?lang=e&id=T-REC-E.123-200102-I!!PDF-E&type=items
> (items 7.1, 7.2)

"The ( ) should not be used in an international number"

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

#59571

"Piet" <www.godfatherof.nl/@opt-in.invalid> wrote in message 
news:q33qf6$i66$1@gioia.aioe.org...
> Frank Slootweg wrote:
>> NY wrote:
>>> Lars Enderin wrote:
>>>> NY wrote:
>>>>> 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.
>
> Which problem? The notation +31 (0)10 1234567 is ITU-approved:
> https://www.itu.int/rec/dologin_pub.asp?lang=e&id=T-REC-E.123-200102-I!!PDF-E&type=items
> (items 7.1, 7.2)
> https://www.itu.int/rec/dologin_pub.asp?lang=e&id=T-REC-E.123-200102-I!!PDF-S&type=items
> for Carlos ;-)

Ah, it's actually a standard, is it? It's common informal practice here in 
the UK, but BT (and maybe the GPO before them) used to recommend that you 
always quoted the numbers separately:

01296 xxxxxx    within UK
+44 1296 xxxxxx    international

> That ITU document has another interesting aspect: it correctly speaks
> of "web adresses" instead of the common "internet addresses" nonsense.
> Unfortunately it at least *suggests* that a web address always begins
> with "www.", which is also common nonsense.

It is common convention that a web server is always www.domain.country (eg 
www.microsoft.com), which leaves other names such as "pop.", "smtp.", 
"imap.", "news." for other servers on the domain.

Most browsers nowadays change "microsoft.com" to "www.microsoft.com" if you 
type the shorter form in the URL field. 

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

#59574

In article <d4ednSk0sb5iacjBnZ2dnUU78W_NnZ2d@brightview.co.uk>, NY
<me@privacy.net> wrote:

> > That ITU document has another interesting aspect: it correctly speaks
> > of "web adresses" instead of the common "internet addresses" nonsense.
> > Unfortunately it at least *suggests* that a web address always begins
> > with "www.", which is also common nonsense.
> 
> It is common convention that a web server is always www.domain.country (eg 
> www.microsoft.com), which leaves other names such as "pop.", "smtp.", 
> "imap.", "news." for other servers on the domain.

using www is common, but it's not required and .com is not a country. 

a lot of urls don't use www because there's no need for it. example:
<https://arstechnica.com>

> Most browsers nowadays change "microsoft.com" to "www.microsoft.com" if you 
> type the shorter form in the URL field. 

no they don't. 

the web server will normally redirect variations to its canonical url,
but that's not required. sometimes it's desirable to have prefixes
denote separate sites and sometimes omitting www will fail.

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

#59528

On 01/02/2019 11.45, NY wrote:
> "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.

Long ago, Spain. The 9 in the area code had to be dropped. That was
before 1997 IIRC.

That year the numbering system was modified so that the area code in
full has to be dialed even inside that area, so that all numbers would
be 9 digit long, and opening other ranges starting with 8 or others.

-- 
Cheers, Carlos.

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

#59446

On 29/01/2019 10.47, micky wrote:
> 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. 

Once, before mobile phones were invented, I tried. We were billed an
international phone call, apparently because the call was routed via the
international exchange.

Modern routing should know about this and change the routing to not be
international.

Mobile switches were designed differently, they do not have this
problem. You can enter local names with the international prefix and the
thing knows how to handle it properly, even if you go abroad and change SIM.

Note that if you go abroad and keep the SIM, the phone works as if
connected to your country of origin. Numbers without international
prefix are treated as if they are from there, while you need the
international prefix to call the phones on the country you are visiting,
which are for you international calls, and billed as such. Except inside
the EU for EU phones.


> 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. 

No, it is impossible to have a button to mark dial end. It doesn't work
that way. Dialing is finished when the computer at the exchange decides
the number is complete - and the length varies per destination.

You phone may accept a number without sending it, and then have a button
to actually dial it, which is different. The exchange analyzes the
number, and if it is too short it will wait for the rest and timeout
eventually. The phone doesn't typically analyze the number.

It works from left to right. Get one digit, analyze. Complete? No, wait
for next digit; yes, complete the call to destination. This way you can
handle a number with three digits, like 112 or 999, or with a dozen -
the difference is that they start different. You can never have a 9
digit number that starts like 99985.... The moment it reaches the third
9, it completes. Extra is ignored, or sent to client exchange (extension
number).

The people that created the routing tables at the exchanges were
specialists. Not everybody could do that. I couldn't (I could analyze a
routing, just not create one). They are complex tables, many interlinks.

-- 
Cheers, Carlos.

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

#59480

In comp.mobile.android, on Tue, 29 Jan 2019 13:20:49 +0100, "Carlos
E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote:

>On 29/01/2019 10.47, micky wrote:
>> 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. 
>
>Once, before mobile phones were invented, I tried. We were billed an
>international phone call, apparently because the call was routed via the
>international exchange.
>
>Modern routing should know about this and change the routing to not be
>international.
>
>Mobile switches were designed differently, they do not have this
>problem. You can enter local names with the international prefix and the
>thing knows how to handle it properly, even if you go abroad and change SIM.

Thanks.  Thanks everyone. 

>Note that if you go abroad and keep the SIM, the phone works as if
>connected to your country of origin. Numbers without international
>prefix are treated as if they are from there, while you need the
>international prefix to call the phones on the country you are visiting,
>which are for you international calls, and billed as such. Except inside
>the EU for EU phones.
>
>
>> 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. 
>
>No, it is impossible to have a button to mark dial end. It doesn't work
>that way. Dialing is finished when the computer at the exchange decides
>the number is complete - and the length varies per destination.
>
>You phone may accept a number without sending it, and then have a button
>to actually dial it, which is different. The exchange analyzes the
>number, and if it is too short it will wait for the rest and timeout
>eventually. The phone doesn't typically analyze the number.
>
>It works from left to right. Get one digit, analyze. Complete? No, wait
>for next digit; yes, complete the call to destination. This way you can
>handle a number with three digits, like 112 or 999, or with a dozen -
>the difference is that they start different. You can never have a 9
>digit number that starts like 99985.... The moment it reaches the third
>9, it completes. Extra is ignored, or sent to client exchange (extension
>number).
>
>The people that created the routing tables at the exchanges were
>specialists. Not everybody could do that. I couldn't (I could analyze a
>routing, just not create one). They are complex tables, many interlinks.

I posted in the other forum and waited to reply here until I saw if that
woman was going to object, but she's been silent. I'm glad to get this
straight, and I'll be redoing my address book a little bit at a time. 

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

#59454

On Tue, 29 Jan 2019 04:47:12 -0500, micky <NONONOmisc07@bigfoot.com>
wrote:

>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? 

I store all my phone numbers in the full international format and have
done so for the last 25 years.

I've used this format in dozens of countries and the only problem I
encountered was in Australia. Calls made to local Australian numbers
wouldn't work and I had to use the national dialling format. 

This was on the Optus network way back in the year 2000. It's possible
the situation may have changed there since then.

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

#59459

Am 29.01.19 um 10:47 schrieb micky:
> 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.

No.

> 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?

The phone system uses only the parts of the number that it needs. The 
complete number only makes sure that you can reach the person you want 
to talk to irrespective where *you* are located.

The way you have the number in the phone is not relevant for billing.
Outside of the US leading digits at the beginning of a number that go 
beyond the country code do not work. A US number looks for me:

+1 202 ....
+49 808 ... is a German number

Both are recognised anywhere in the world.

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

#59543

On Tue, 29 Jan 2019 04:47:12 -0500, micky wrote:

> 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. 


My cellular company bills it as a domestic call, not as an 
international call.

Anyways, there isn't a single international rate to all countries
from here (YMMV).  My cellular telco has to check the country code 
after the '+' or IDD code to know the rate to charge.  When they 
see the country code is this country then they know the rate is the 
rate for domestic calls.


> 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. 


Far nicer to simply enter '+' and not have to know the IDD code in 
each country I am visiting.

I enter all my domestic contacts with a '+' in international format, 
so I can use the same contacts entry to call them whether I am at 
home or overseas.


> And afaik also no
> wired phone allows one to dial by hand and then push a memory button to
> finish dialing. 



-- 
Kind regards
Ralph

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Page 2 of 2 — ← Prev page 1 [2]

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

csiph-web