david@wubios.wustl.edu (David J. Camp) (08/24/90)
I have traditionally listed my telephone number as "(314) 362-3635".
My previous work number was accessible via an internal 5-digit suffix,
so I listed it as "(314) 36-23635". Someone complained that that was
improper, and could cause problems for certain exchanges. Yet another
sources suggested "+1 314 362 3635", under the vague impression that
this was an international standard encoding.
My question is: What is the most portable encoding of a USA telephone
number? Is there a standards document that addresses this issue?
Note that the number used in the example is no longer valid for me.
david@wubios.wustl.edu David J. Camp
...!uunet!wuarchive!wubios!david +1 314 382 0584
[Moderator's Note: You really should not use () around the area code.
The area code part of the number, there is nothing parenthetical about
it. In other words, 123-456-7890 is the preferred way to write it.
(123) 456-7890 is not preferred. PAT]JMS@mis.Arizona.EDU (Programmin' up a storm.) (08/26/90)
I'm at home, so I don't have my Blue Books huddled around me, but there IS a CCITT standard for "how to write your telephone number," and it goes roughly like this: +1 602 795 3955 Because of the magic wonderfulness of the US country code being "1" and the number we all use to access long distance being "1," this is incredibly cosmic and confuses neither NA nor European subscribers. There is specific advice NOT to put parentheses around the area code, and there is discussion about writing it two ways: once for "national" callers and once for "international" callers, with the national being on the top, and the international on the bottom. There is also a specific symbol (which looks kind of like a Q) that you are supposed to put on the side of your number if you have an answering machine (actually, a "device substituting for a subscriber in his absence"). In fact, E.117 is the standard for what your answering machine message should be. Again, I forget the details. On a similar vein: there was a discussion several years ago about the # sign. While this may be called "octothorpe" in Bell parlance, it is not in CCITT parlance. There is, however, a specific format for displaying the sign, depending on whether you're in North America (in which case it's slanted, look on your phone if you don't remember, with a specific angle to the slant) or elsewhere, in which case it's straight up-and-down (as my terminal is displaying it now; your mileage may vary). There are specific rules about the ratio of the short pieces to the long pieces, as well. In general, I think that a large percentage of the questions of this nature in this newsfroup have good answers in the E-series recommendations: the touch tones, why the tri-tone is SO DAMN LOUD, etc. If the Moderator agrees, I'd be willing to type in some of the "official CCITT" answers to some of the more commonly and hotly debated questions here. Note, of course, that the CCITT is the CCITT and Bell is/was Bell, so no answer is authoritative -- and the history is often more interesting than the answer. Joel Snyder Member US Delegation to CCITT SG VII) [Moderator's Note: Yes, please send along some CCITT 'questions and answers' for the Digest. PAT]
tnixon@uunet.uu.net (Toby Nixon) (08/27/90)
In article <11320@accuvax.nwu.edu>, david@wubios.wustl.edu (David J. Camp) writes: > My question is: What is the most portable encoding of a USA telephone > number? Is there a standards document that addresses this issue? CCITT Recommendation E.123 standardizes the notation for telephone numbers both within countries and internationally. It specifies that your "national" telephone number be written with the "city code" (area code) in parenthesis, with the number following with spaces between segments as appropriate. For example, my phone number would be written as "(404) 449 8791". Parenthesis, according to paragraph 4.2 of E.123, indicate that the enclosed portion of the number is not always dialed (e.g., if you're within the same city/area code). Parenthesis should not be used in an international number, since the entire number must be dialed. E.123 specifies that international phone numbers be written with a plus sign and the country code, followed by the city code and local number; by number would be written as "+1 404 449 8791". The "+" means that the international prefix ("011" in the USA) should be dialed before the number; the country code always immediately follows the "+". Paragraph 6.1 of E.123 says that spaces should be used instead of hyphens to separate portions of a phone number. Countries may authorize other notations, such as use of a hyphen, but hyphens are never to be used when specifying an international number. Nevertheless, I put the hyphens in my signature (below) because most of the people I send messages to are used to seeing it and because it "keeps it together" so its less confusing. Toby Nixon, Principal Engineer Fax: +1-404-441-1213 Telex: 6502670805 Hayes Microcomputer Products Inc. Voice: +1-404-449-8791 CIS: 70271,404 Norcross, Georgia, USA BBS: +1-404-446-6336 MCI: TNIXON Telemail: T.NIXON/HAYES AT&T: !tnixon UUCP: ...!uunet!hayes!tnixon Internet: hayes!tnixon@uunet.uu.net MHS: C=US / AD=ATTMAIL / PN=TOBY_L_NIXON / DD=TNIXON
"Donald E. Kimberlin" <0004133373@mcimail.com> (08/30/90)
In article (Digest V10, iss594), Joel writes: >In general, I think that a large percentage of the questions of this >nature in this newsgroup have good answers in the E-series >recommendations: the touch tones, why the tri-tone is SO DAMN LOUD, >etc. If the Moderator agrees, I'd be willing to type in some of the >"official CCITT" answers to some of the more commonly and hotly >debated questions here. Note, of course, that the CCITT is the CCITT >and Bell is/was Bell, so no answer is authoritative -- and the history >is often more interesting than the answer. To which I must say, "Amen, Brother Snyder." I hope you will become the resident reference authority, and to give the readers some sense of antiquity to their many discoveries, quote some of the heading material in the Recommendations that shows a lot of these "standards" have been in the CCITT books since it was called the CCIF and the CCIT. And, don't make it just the "E" series, but show them the "F" series on registered cable addresses and such, the "G" series about analog and digital transmission, and dig out others as they come up. It seems to me the Digest goes around in loops about certain topics as new readers come on board and recite the latest misleading tripe they got from their local telco about "standards." Whose "standards," indeed?