Path: utzoo!attcan!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!samsung!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!gem.mps.ohio-state.edu!wuarchive!swbatl!texbell!vector!chinacat!telecom-gateway From: john@jetson.upma.md.us (John Owens) Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom Subject: Re: Why Not 00 as the International Prefix in the US? Message-ID: Date: 29 Nov 89 15:15:19 GMT Sender: news@chinacat.Lonestar.ORG Organization: SMART HOUSE Limited Partnership Lines: 28 Approved: telecom-request@chinacat.lonestar.org X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu X-TELECOM-Digest: volume 9, issue 536, message 5 of 10 On Nov 26, 4:25pm, Dan Sahlin wrote: > Thus the US could then follow the > international recommendations for international prefix (i.e. 00), > instead of having 010 which is not used anywhere else in the world. We would still need a way of distinguishing between calls billed to the calling number and operator-assisted or calling-card billing. We dial 011+country+city+number for a direct-billed station-to-station call, and 010+country+city+number to get person-to-person calls and credit-card, collect, or third-party billing. (I've seen 01 used in place of 010, but I believe that both are accepted.) I suppose we could use 00 for direct calls (which seems to be the international standard) and 000 for operator-assisted calls, but given the use of 00 for an LD operator (which is obscure enough alone that few people understand it), this seems like it would confuse things even further. John Owens john@jetson.UPMA.MD.US uunet!jetson!john +1 301 249 6000 john%jetson.uucp@uunet.uu.net