UK number interpreted as US - weirdness...
in [UK Mobile]
|
Prev: What do we think of O2?
Next: A trip down memory lane
From: Lobster on 1 Aug 2010 13:56 Denis McMahon wrote: > On 31/07/10 07:10, Lobster wrote: > >> +44 01302 xxxxxx > > I'd be surprised if you got billed for calling a USA number, as you > didn't dial a valid USA number. How many digits does the number shown on > the bill have? Yes, which was what I found odd too. The number on the bill is 001625xxxxxx (ie one more digit than a standard US one AFAIK). > I'd also be surprised if the calls actually connected as dialled. Well, they definitely did! and I was surprised too - hence my post. I certainly phoned the individual concerned several times that month, and have no recollection of there ever being even any problem connecting. I also checked the full itemised bill, in case there were other occurrences of the number in correct UK format; however there were none at all. Fortunately it's not a huge sum of money involved, so barely even worth trying to whinge to Tesco about; I posted more out of curiosity. David
From: Lobster on 1 Aug 2010 15:46 Denis McMahon wrote: > On 01/08/10 18:56, Lobster wrote: >> Denis McMahon wrote: >>> On 31/07/10 07:10, Lobster wrote: >>> >>>> +44 01302 xxxxxx >>> I'd be surprised if you got billed for calling a USA number, as you >>> didn't dial a valid USA number. How many digits does the number shown on >>> the bill have? >> Yes, which was what I found odd too. The number on the bill is >> 001625xxxxxx (ie one more digit than a standard US one AFAIK). > Actually you come up one digit short for a US number. True! > In addition, there's no way that the 302 would become 625. No, indeed... apologies for the confusion there: I originally quoted the 01302 code just as a random, anonymous but valid UK geographic code, although the actual code I dialled was indeed 01625 - when I checked the bill earlier I forgot I'd previously cited 01302... (!) David
From: Dennis Ferguson on 1 Aug 2010 17:57 On 2010-08-01, Lobster <davidlobsterpot601(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > Denis McMahon wrote: >> Actually you come up one digit short for a US number. > > True! > >> In addition, there's no way that the 302 would become 625. > > No, indeed... apologies for the confusion there: I originally quoted the > 01302 code just as a random, anonymous but valid UK geographic code, > although the actual code I dialled was indeed 01625 - when I checked the > bill earlier I forgot I'd previously cited 01302... (!) That's even better. There is no way you could have called a 001625 number because NANP area code 625 is unassigned. See, e.g. http://www.nanpa.com/nas/public/npa_query_step1.do?method=resetNpaReportModel Dennis Ferguson
From: Whiskers on 2 Aug 2010 08:53
On 2010-08-01, Dennis Ferguson <dcferguson(a)pacbell.net> wrote: > On 2010-08-01, Lobster <davidlobsterpot601(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >> Denis McMahon wrote: [...] >> No, indeed... apologies for the confusion there: I originally quoted the >> 01302 code just as a random, anonymous but valid UK geographic code, >> although the actual code I dialled was indeed 01625 - when I checked the >> bill earlier I forgot I'd previously cited 01302... (!) > > That's even better. There is no way you could have called a 001625 > number because NANP area code 625 is unassigned. See, e.g. > > http://www.nanpa.com/nas/public/npa_query_step1.do?method=resetNpaReportModel > > Dennis Ferguson So he's doing one impossible thing (getting connected to the correct number although dialling the wrong number) and being charged for a different impossible thing (connecting to a foreign number that doesn't exist). Clearly the telco uses an infinite improbability device :)) -- -- ^^^^^^^^^^ -- Whiskers -- ~~~~~~~~~~ |