Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!mailrus!accuvax.nwu.edu!nucsrl!telecom-request
From: urlichs@smurf.ira.uka.de (Matthias Urlichs)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Re: The CCITT Recommendation on International D.A.
Message-ID: <4739@accuvax.nwu.edu>
Date: 4 Mar 90 11:12:43 GMT
Sender: news@accuvax.nwu.edu
Organization: University of Karlsruhe, FRG
Lines: 34
Approved: Telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 10, Issue 144, Message 8 of 10


In comp.dcom.telecom, article <4692@accuvax.nwu.edu>,
 covert@covert.enet.dec.com (John R. Covert  03-Mar-1990 0837) writes:
 
< Matthias Urlichs writes:
< > I had lots of fun convincing first the International D.A. and then the
< > operator to place the call (no intl dialing...) that the area code of
< > Nuernberg is in fact valid -- it's 911, which seems to be used for a
< > quite different purpose in the US...
 
< The problem here was that you probably "said too much."  To call D.A.
< in Germany, an operator just presses the "Overseas" button and dials
< 49-1188.  (In accordance with the CCITT recommendation, this doesn't
< work for us mere mortals.)
 
Thinking back, it was somewhat more complicated. German DA was
switching their number from 118 to 1188 at that time. The old number,
understandably, did not seem to do anything. Major confusion resulted. :-)

I managed to persuade the D.A. operator to at least _try_ 1188 (seemed
to be very astonished when it actually worked) -- then when she
started reading back that number (didn't let me in on the call) she
stopped halfway and exclaimed "Sorry, but that can't be correct". Me:
"Yes it is, please give me the rest of the number." You can probably
think of the next few exchanges yourself...

< [...] I suspect if you had tried any other international number it might
< have been free as well.  There is a fairly common No. 1 ESS C.O.
< programming error which makes all 011+ calls free.  [...]

This seems to be a somewhat better ;-) explanation than my conjecture. Thanks.


Matthias Urlichs