00+, 011+, etc. (was Local 10-Digit Dialing) [telecom]

In "Local 10-Digit Dialing", Charles Gray added:

Another observation - you have to have some method of differentiating > between a self-dialed LD call, operator-assisted call, or international > call. Of course we use 1+, 0+, and 011+ respectively. Many (but not > all) other countries use 0+ for a self-dialed national call and 00+ for > international access. There has been recent discussion about the North > American dial plan switching from 011 to 00 for international access.

I know that this opinion has been tossed about for 10-20 years (or more) by SOME people in the US (or Canada) who have lived abroad off-and-on for many years, and who think that NON-NANP countries with their variable length local/national dialing/numbering plans (which is NOT always the norm these days) is "far superior" to the fixed-length format of the NANP. These people also think that the NANP (the US and Canada) should also either CHANGE from 011+ to 00+ for station sent-paid calls to points outside of the NANP (Country Code +1), or at least "add" 00+ as an alternative dialing option to 011+ for such calls to non-NANP points.

But could you point to some specific FCC/CRTC orders or at least "notice of proposed rulemaking" on this? The ITU/UN does NOT have authority over dialing codes as used within the NANP or any other country, as long as the country code format (NOT the access codes) and national numbering format complies with the ITU's E.164 recommendations. And the NANP's

10-digit format and "overall" dialing of COUNTRY codes conforms with this. But our use of 011+ (and 01+) does NOT violate ANY ITU/UN directives/etc.

The European Union has proposed or ordered various changes or at least modifications or additions to various national dialing/numbering in its member countries, but that does NOT apply to the NANP!

Is there any recent open issue by the NANP's ATIS/INC's (Alliance for Telecommunications Industry Solutions / Industry Numberng Committee) for CHANGING 011+ to 00+ for station sent paid calls to non-NANP country codes? Or ADDING 00+ as an option to 011+? I haven't seen any such proposal from the ATIS/INC, nor from the FCC/CRTC!

I am heartily against such a proposal - I can't imagine trying to train > 400-500 million people who use the NANP to dial something different > after all these years.

I TOO am AGAINST such! Even *ADDING* 00+ as an additional option for station sent-paid IDDD calls to the existing 011+.

Someone travelling from abroad is NOT going to be dropping coins in a payphone to dial 011+ (or 00+ if adopted here) for calling back home, assuming that the payphone (if you can find one, or even one that works) even allows coin-sent-paid IDDD calls. And they should NOT be using their host's phone to call back home as 011+ (or 00+ if adopted). NO, the guest should be using their own cellphone, most likely GSM with the way to key a '+' sign followed by the full worldwide number back home or anywhere when visiting in the NANP. OR, from their host's phones or system, or from a payphone, they would use "home country direct" to call back home (or where-ever else in the world) COLLECT or billed to their card, or with a prepaid card, using a NANP-based toll-free access number (800,

888, 877, 866) printed on the back of their card for use when calling from the US or Canada.

I wouldn't "force" myself upon my host if I were a guest in the UK or France to call back ot the US (or where-ever) as 00+ station sent-paid, unless they agreed to it and I offered to pay the toll charges to them. And I wouldn't expect that 011+ would be dialable if I were to use their phone to call back home!

And 00+ is too "close" to 0+ which within the NANP is for SPECIAL BILLED (collect, 3rd Party, Card) calls to other NANP numbers. There COULD be misdials if 00+ were added for IDDD sent paid from the NANP -- someone intending a DOMESTIC collect or card call as 0+ ten-digits misdials it as 00+ and the remaining ten (or even fewer significant) digits is a valid "worldwide" number somewhere else in the world, and is routed and billed as station sent paid!

NO! 00+ should NOT be adopted here in the NANP, not even as an alternative means of IDDD! But are there really any official formal discussions on such at the ATIS/INC or CRTC/FCC level?

Reply to
Anthony Bellanga
Loading thread data ...

Anthony Bellanga schrieb:

E.164 does not mandate a change in existing dial plans, but does indeed recommend 0 as the national trunk prefix (section 7.3.2) and 00 as the international trunk prefix (section 12). The obvious reason is that people should not have to learn a new dialling system for each country they travel to.

I don't know much about the charges and functionality offered by US pay phones, but whereever I've travelled (except Thailand in 1991), it has always been possible to use payphones for IDD calls at reasonable rates and in most cases much cheaper than using a roaming cell phone. My German cell phone operator would charge me 2.35 US$/min for calling from the US to Germany and I would expect it to be much cheaper to use a pay phone. Many countries have also ceased to offer "country direct" services or even operator assisted dialling completely, since such services were rarely used and too expensive to operate for just a handfull of customers.

If your host is even slightly up to date on telecommunications, he would probably not bother at all. From most European countries, international calls are not much more expensive than national calls (if more expensive at all). The cheapest German long distance provider currently charges 1.35 US cent per minute for calls to the US and my German fixed line provider offers a flat fee at 11 US$/month for all calls to some 20 countries, among them US and Canada.


Reply to
Tor-Einar Jarnbjo

Cabling-Design.com Forums website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.