UK number interpreted as US - weirdness...
in [UK Mobile]
|
Prev: What do we think of O2?
Next: A trip down memory lane
From: alexd on 31 Jul 2010 07:15 Meanwhile, at the uk.telecom.mobile Job Justification Hearings, Lobster chose the tried and tested strategy of: > However it seems very odd to me. When the calls were placed: > (a) How did the "+44" become interpreted as "0"? > (b) Why did the calls connect to my UK contact without any problem at all? Presumably you're not the only person who has made this mistake when creating phone book entries, so the network has chosen to do what you mean rather than what you say :-) However, the billing doesn't match up with the calls you've made and surprise surprise it's not in your favour. > (c) In the light of (b), why was I charged for international calls? The only people who can answer this question is Tesco. -- <http://ale.cx/> (AIM:troffasky) (UnSoEsNpEaTm(a)ale.cx) 12:07:11 up 13 days, 2:38, 6 users, load average: 0.35, 1.44, 1.17 Qua illic est accuso, illic est a vindicatum
From: Denis McMahon on 1 Aug 2010 10:17 On 01/08/10 00:30, Whiskers wrote: > Somewhere along the line (probably in the call routing system) the > spurious +44 or 0 was filtered out for connecting the call. Perhaps noise > in the system can sometimes generate spurious 0s so the routing software > knows to drop them automatically. Nope. Number analysis doesn't ever assume that an invalid digit in a given position can be safely discarded. It either fails the call as invalid number or delivers it as dialled. Rgds Denis McMahon
From: Denis McMahon on 1 Aug 2010 10:18 On 31/07/10 12:15, alexd wrote: > Presumably you're not the only person who has made this mistake when > creating phone book entries, so the network has chosen to do what you mean > rather than what you say :-) Network doesn't do that, because the network doesn't actually know what the customer meant. Rgds Denis McMahon
From: PeeGee on 1 Aug 2010 10:46 On 01/08/10 15:18, Denis McMahon wrote: > On 31/07/10 12:15, alexd wrote: > >> Presumably you're not the only person who has made this mistake when >> creating phone book entries, so the network has chosen to do what you mean >> rather than what you say :-) > > Network doesn't do that, because the network doesn't actually know what > the customer meant. > > Rgds > > Denis McMahon So... dialling a UK number (01.....) in Italy on my mobile won't connect (even though my operator says it will)? -- PeeGee "Nothing should be able to load itself onto a computer without the knowledge or consent of the computer user. Software should also be able to be removed from a computer easily." Peter Cullen, Microsoft Chief Privacy Strategist (Computing 18 Aug 05)
From: Denis McMahon on 1 Aug 2010 12:03
On 01/08/10 15:46, PeeGee wrote: > On 01/08/10 15:18, Denis McMahon wrote: >> On 31/07/10 12:15, alexd wrote: >> >>> Presumably you're not the only person who has made this mistake when >>> creating phone book entries, so the network has chosen to do what you >>> mean >>> rather than what you say :-) >> >> Network doesn't do that, because the network doesn't actually know what >> the customer meant. > So... dialling a UK number (01.....) in Italy on my mobile won't > connect (even though my operator says it will)? Different case. Your network is performing the number analysis that you have been told it will. It is perfectly valid for your network operator to handle calls however it wishes. Obviously it's a good idea for them to make their customers aware of what they need to dial under what conditions to reach a given number. What a network shouldn't (or even mustn't) do is assume that if you dial 001 you actually mean 01 (or vice-versa) unless you have been told that it will do so. Rgds Denis McMahon |