Path: utzoo!telecom-request Date: Mon, 15 Apr 91 10:42:28 BST From: John Slater Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom Subject: London Code Split (was: 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 294, Message 8 of 10 Lines: 33 Bob Goudreau wrote: >> 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)? Indeed. No ambiguity, but I was mistaken originally in claiming that the entire "01..." sequence was now clear. And I should know, as my Mercury account shows all too clearly how many international calls I make :-( However it's worth pointing out that there is a proposal to standardise the international access code throughout the world. I believe "00" is proposed, as this is used in quite a few countries already. Germany springs to mind. This would fit in with both US and UK systems without conflict. (Go ahead, tell me I'm wrong! :-) Sorry, I can't substantiate this, or remember where I first heard about it (here, perhaps?) John Slater Sun Microsystems UK, Gatwick Office