James Silverton

"Edmund Lewis" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected] oups.com...
    > James Silverton wrote:
    >> Edmund wrote on 4 Jun 2005 09:41:34 -0700:
    >> I find I really badly need some examples. Am I right in
    >> saying
    >> that, dialing from the US, I would reach a number
    >> in Glasgow given as 0141 123 4567, by dialing 011 44 141 123
    >> 4567 and for a number
    >> in London, given as 020 7123 4567, I would dial 011 44 20
    >> 7123
    >> 4567 ?
    >> James Silverton.
    > Yes. You've only dropped the first 0 of the area codes which
    > is
    > correct.
    > (My question to you: Can you confirm that it *is* in fact 011
    > (44) to
    > make international calls from America (to Britain), not 00
    > (44) as from
    > most places? It'd be useful me knowing that if I ever go to
    > America).
    > Edmund

Yes, that's what it says in my phone book: 011 + country code +
city code + telephone number.

Regards,

Jim.

S Viemeister

Edmund Lewis wrote:
    >
    > James Silverton wrote:
    > > Edmund wrote on 4 Jun 2005 09:41:34 -0700:
    >
    > >
    > > I find I really badly need some examples. Am I right in saying
    > > that, dialing from the US, I would reach a number
    > > in Glasgow given as 0141 123 4567, by dialing 011 44 141 123
    > > 4567 and for a number
    > > in London, given as 020 7123 4567, I would dial 011 44 20 7123
    > > 4567 ?
    > >
    > > James Silverton.
    >
    > Yes. You've only dropped the first 0 of the area codes which is
    > correct.
    >
    > (My question to you: Can you confirm that it *is* in fact 011 (44) to
    > make international calls from America (to Britain), not 00 (44) as from
    > most places? It'd be useful me knowing that if I ever go to America).
    >
Yes - the US uses 011 before the country code.

Donald Newcomb

"trallala" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]. dk...
    > and for Italy,
    > you MUST LEAVE the 0 after the country code

Italy is the one exception I know of to the general "rule" about dropping
the leading zero. When Italy went to all-digit dialing a few years ago they
just included the leading "0"s in the numbering plan.

--
Donald Newcomb
DRNewcomb (at) attglobal (dot) net

Patrick Wallace

20 covers the whole of London: Inner and Outer London are indicated by
7 or 8 as the first of the next seven digits. Dial [country code] +
20 + then the remaining seven digits.

PJW


On Sat, 4 Jun 2005 09:16:08 -0600, "Marc Raizman"
<[email protected]> wrote:

    >Gentlemen and ladies of the rec.travel.europe: I have to call the UK and am
    >somewhat confused by the city code that was given me, which was 020. I know
    >that the "2" means the phone in question is in the outer areas of London but
    >do I drop both "zeros" after the country code when dialing directly from the
    >US. My guess that this is the case but I ain't sure.
    >Thanks. M.

Hatunen

On Sat, 04 Jun 2005 12:05:19 -0400, [email protected] wrote:


    >Yeah. Why should a different country do something differently?
    >Shame. Now explain why Europe uses PAL and SECAM while we use NTSC
    >which was first? Shouldn't the first rule?

Not when it's as crummy as NTSC.


************* DAVE HATUNEN ([email protected]) *************
* Tucson Arizona, out where the cacti grow *
* My typos & mispellings are intentional copyright traps *

Hatunen

On 4 Jun 2005 09:33:29 -0700, "Edmund Lewis" <[email protected]>
wrote:

    >[email protected] wrote:
    >> Shame. Now explain why Europe uses PAL and SECAM while we use NTSC
    >> which was first? Shouldn't the first rule?
    >http://www.videointerchange.com/pal_...onversions.htm
    >Interestingly, places on the list as using NTSC almost all do not the
    >00 code (exceptions are Chile, Peru, Venezuela, and Dutch colonies). I
    >wonder if there's a connection (no pun intended)?

I expect Americans set up most of their telephone companies.

************* DAVE HATUNEN ([email protected]) *************
* Tucson Arizona, out where the cacti grow *
* My typos & mispellings are intentional copyright traps *

Hatunen

On 4 Jun 2005 10:16:24 -0700, "Edmund Lewis" <[email protected]>
wrote:

    >James Silverton wrote:
    >> Edmund wrote on 4 Jun 2005 09:41:34 -0700:
    >> I find I really badly need some examples. Am I right in saying
    >> that, dialing from the US, I would reach a number
    >> in Glasgow given as 0141 123 4567, by dialing 011 44 141 123
    >> 4567 and for a number
    >> in London, given as 020 7123 4567, I would dial 011 44 20 7123
    >> 4567 ?
    >> James Silverton.
    >Yes. You've only dropped the first 0 of the area codes which is
    >correct.
    >(My question to you: Can you confirm that it *is* in fact 011 (44) to
    >make international calls from America (to Britain), not 00 (44) as from
    >most places? It'd be useful me knowing that if I ever go to America).

We always use 011 to access internationl service; it even says so
in the front of the telephone book; did you think to look there?

************* DAVE HATUNEN ([email protected]) *************
* Tucson Arizona, out where the cacti grow *
* My typos & mispellings are intentional copyright traps *

Jeremy Rogers

The message <1gxn77q.1vtabta1r8bc74N%jem*NO-SPAM*@netspace.net.au>
from jem*NO-SPAM*@netspace.net.au (Joan McGalliard) contains these words:

    > there is one code for London, (0)20. The 7 or 8 is part of the number.
    > If you are in London, you can skip the 020 part. It historically
    > reflects the old 0171 and 0181, but that's just convenience. Eventually
    > London numbers will have other leading digits.

Already started. Number ranges beginning with "3" were released on 1
June by Ofcom, and they will appear in use by providers later this year.

Jez

Chancellor Of The Duchy Of Besses O' Th' Barn And

Joan McGalliard <jem*NO-SPAM*@netspace.net.au> wrote:

    > Edmund Lewis <[email protected]> wrote:
    >
    > > It looks like you're calling a London number, there are two codes 0207
    > > for inner London, 0208 for outer.
    >
    > While we are being pedantic ....
    >
    > there is one code for London, (0)20. The 7 or 8 is part of the number.
    > If you are in London, you can skip the 020 part. It historically
    > reflects the old 0171 and 0181, but that's just convenience. Eventually
    > London numbers will have other leading digits.

020 3xxx xxxx is coming in latter this year. The point about 020 7
reflecting more 'central' numbers is broadly true though- I don't know
what will happen with 020 3- probably more spread about,

--
David Horne- www.davidhorne.net
usenet (at) davidhorne (dot) co (dot) uk

Chancellor Of The Duchy Of Besses O' Th' Barn And

Hatunen <[email protected]> wrote:

    > On 4 Jun 2005 10:16:24 -0700, "Edmund Lewis" <[email protected]>
    > wrote:
[]
    > >(My question to you: Can you confirm that it *is* in fact 011 (44) to
    > >make international calls from America (to Britain), not 00 (44) as from
    > >most places? It'd be useful me knowing that if I ever go to America).
    >
    > We always use 011 to access internationl service; it even says so
    > in the front of the telephone book; did you think to look there?

Did you think that a foreign phone book would necessarily contain that
information?

--
David Horne- www.davidhorne.net
usenet (at) davidhorne (dot) co (dot) uk

Edmund Lewis

Hatunen wrote:
    > On 4 Jun 2005 10:16:24 -0700, "Edmund Lewis" <[email protected]>
    > wrote:
    > >
    > >
    > >James Silverton wrote:
    > >> Edmund wrote on 4 Jun 2005 09:41:34 -0700:
    > >
    > >>
    > >> I find I really badly need some examples. Am I right in saying
    > >> that, dialing from the US, I would reach a number
    > >> in Glasgow given as 0141 123 4567, by dialing 011 44 141 123
    > >> 4567 and for a number
    > >> in London, given as 020 7123 4567, I would dial 011 44 20 7123
    > >> 4567 ?
    > >>
    > >> James Silverton.
    > >
    > >Yes. You've only dropped the first 0 of the area codes which is
    > >correct.
    > >
    > >(My question to you: Can you confirm that it *is* in fact 011 (44) to
    > >make international calls from America (to Britain), not 00 (44) as from
    > >most places? It'd be useful me knowing that if I ever go to America).
    > We always use 011 to access internationl service; it even says so
    > in the front of the telephone book; did you think to look there?

No, I decided to look on the Internet instead. Technology, eh?

Seriously, I thought that most countries (and now I know that most
countries) use(d) 00 44 to phone Britain, thanks to everyone who
corrected me.
Apologies to the OP.

Edmund

Derek McBryde

On Sat, 04 Jun 2005 12:05:19 -0400, [email protected] wrote:

    >On 4 Jun 2005 08:58:50 -0700, "Edmund Lewis" <[email protected]>
    >wrote:
    >Yeah. Why should a different country do something differently?
    >Shame. Now explain why Europe uses PAL and SECAM while we use NTSC
    >which was first? Shouldn't the first rule?
Only if it remains the best. The challenge with being the first is
that others come along and improve on your ideas.

PAL was a superior technology to NTSC and had more lines of
resolution. The NTSC standard was created to allow colour television
signals to be compatible with existing black and white televisions.
Consequently it combined everything into one composite signal and the
transmitted colours were dodgy to say the least. PAL separated out
the colour signal components producing a more stable picture. I don't
know why the French came up with SECAM.

What "rules" is mostly governed by market forces. The best home
video format was the pioneering Philips 2000. This was followed by
the Sony betamax format and then the VHS format from JVC.
Although the poorest format, VHS was adopted by many manfacturers.
More importantly it was adopted by the makers of pre-recorded tapes.
Because of the wider availablity of pre-recorded VHS tapes, it saw
off the rest to become the industry standard.

Only the strongest rules!

Lennart Petersen

"Derek McBryde" <[email protected]> skrev i meddelandet
news:[email protected]...
    > On Sat, 04 Jun 2005 12:05:19 -0400, [email protected] wrote:
    >>On 4 Jun 2005 08:58:50 -0700, "Edmund Lewis" <[email protected]>
    >>wrote:
    >>Yeah. Why should a different country do something differently?
    >>Shame. Now explain why Europe uses PAL and SECAM while we use NTSC
    >>which was first? Shouldn't the first rule?
    > Only if it remains the best. The challenge with being the first is
    > that others come along and improve on your ideas.
    > PAL was a superior technology to NTSC and had more lines of
    > resolution. The NTSC standard was created to allow colour television
    > signals to be compatible with existing black and white televisions.
    > Consequently it combined everything into one composite signal and the
    > transmitted colours were dodgy to say the least. PAL separated out
    > the colour signal components producing a more stable picture. I don't
    > know why the French came up with SECAM.
SECAM was said to provide a better picture than PAL but not so good on long
distance broadcasting
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SECAM

Ian F.

"Lennart Petersen" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...

    > SECAM was said to provide a better picture than PAL but not so good on
    > long distance broadcasting

SECAM - Shows Every Colour All Murky
NTSC - Never Twice the Same Colour
PAL - Perfect At Last

;-)

Ian

jbk

On Sun, 05 Jun 2005 02:21:30 GMT, "Lennart Petersen"
<[email protected]> wrote:

    >"Derek McBryde" <[email protected]> skrev i meddelandet
    >news:[email protected]...
    >> On Sat, 04 Jun 2005 12:05:19 -0400, [email protected] wrote:
    >>>On 4 Jun 2005 08:58:50 -0700, "Edmund Lewis" <[email protected]>
    >>>wrote:
    >>>Yeah. Why should a different country do something differently?
    >>>Shame. Now explain why Europe uses PAL and SECAM while we use NTSC
    >>>which was first? Shouldn't the first rule?
    >> Only if it remains the best. The challenge with being the first is
    >> that others come along and improve on your ideas.

Of course. You're entirely right. I was just being facetious in
response to the poster's question as to why some country should do
something different from another. The answer is obvious and it's the
one you give.

    >> PAL was a superior technology to NTSC and had more lines of
    >> resolution. The NTSC standard was created to allow colour television
    >> signals to be compatible with existing black and white televisions.
    >> Consequently it combined everything into one composite signal and the
    >> transmitted colours were dodgy to say the least. PAL separated out
    >> the colour signal components producing a more stable picture. I don't
    >> know why the French came up with SECAM.
    >SECAM was said to provide a better picture than PAL but not so good on long
    >distance broadcasting
    >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SECAM

True, but it's going to be interesting to see what happens with high
definition now which is superior to all of these.