Path: utzoo!telecom-request Date: Wed, 10 Apr 91 17:33:03 edt From: Bob Goudreau Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom Subject: Re: Dublin Number Expansion Message-ID: Organization: TELECOM Digest Sender: Telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Approved: Telecom@eecs.nwu.edu X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 11, Issue 280, Message 6 of 8 Lines: 22 In article , tjo@fulcrum.bt.co.uk (Tim Oldham) writes: > > I believe the reason BT didn't choose the "017 & 018" option is that > > they preferred to keep the entire "01..." sequence clear for as yet > > unspecified future use. > I believe (and I don't speak for my employer on this) that as 01 is > already the international dialling sequence (eg the USA is 0101), 017 > and 018 were out of the question, or just plain confusing. Beg your pardon? I thought (and your own example seems to prove) that the international prefix was "010", not "01". So where's the ambiguity for 017, 018, or indeed any 01x (as long as x != 0)? Bob Goudreau +1 919 248 6231 Data General Corporation goudreau@dg-rtp.dg.com 62 Alexander Drive ...!mcnc!rti!xyzzy!goudreau Research Triangle Park, NC 27709, USA