Talk:Vertical service code

The long list of bullets is ugly and difficult to read. A conversion to tabular format would be better. If no one's going to do it, I'll eventually get around to it. -Shoecream 01:28, Feb 18, 2005 (UTC)

I'll second that. This format is ok if you need a definition of a code, but if one is trying to figure out what code does "whatever" it is not the best format. At best, then, it is a laundry list of codes. I would suggest making it a "sortable table" with codes being one column, function (say "Cancel Call Waiting") being another and the detailed explanation in a "details & comments" column. Users could then sort based on either the first or second column depending on whether they are looking for a definition of a specific code or searching for a code to perform a specified function.Enquire (talk) 20:55, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Now that Lexlex merged in the other similar page containing a table, the next step is to combine the information instead of having it listed twice...
The codes listed for "Cellular One" need to be researched. Cellular One was a brand applied to a wide variety of mobile services, so those codes could have come from anywhere, and may not be in use any more. -- Justinbb (talk) 18:35, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Standard

Is the vertical service code actually a world-wide standard, or just limited to US Bells?

Thanks, --Abdull 13:38, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Good question. I think, at least, it applies to Canada and the USA. In some locations the same codes also work with a # after the number instead of a * before. For example, some telcos have (for example) "70#" equivalent to *70".Enquire (talk) 20:55, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The VSCs are designed strictly for use within the North American Numbering Plan. In Europe, a separate set of "supplementary service" codes has been developed and is standardized by ETSI. See Supplementary service codes -- Justinbb (talk) 18:35, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why are they called 'vertical'?

81.94.145.74 13:43, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merger proposal

It seems these two pages are very similar and could be combined easily into one. If nothing else, one should reference the other - but repeating the same information on both is problematic at best. Lexlex (talk) 19:08, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Which two? Jim.henderson (talk) 17:06, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

CLASS, LASS and VSC -- It was an obvious error, so I've already done it. Lexlex (talk) 23:13, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]