9 (Nine) Digit Phone Numbers
Bob Tabac
9 (Nine Digit) Local Numbers
----------------------------
With the Introduction of 9 digit phone numbers and
keeping the existing 3 digit area codes we will be able
to collapse many area codes.
For example several cities already have several area-codes
by collapsing the area-codes we can have all numbers within a
city within one area code. British Telecom is already considering
this for London's 171 and 181 areacodes.
This procedure can also be used so that there is one area code per
state/(province/territories)/other countries. An area code such as
495 etc or whatever could be used for each state!!!
For example in Ontario
if nine digit numbers is established
ie 416 number 555-2333
could become 41555-2333
ie 905 number 555-6777
could become 90555-6777
this new areacode (3 digits) with
9 digit local numbers could
collapse many numbers including the following in
Ontario
416, 905,705,613 and whatever!!!
this can be used on other states, and provinces
also. A nine digit system
will give-back area codes a truly regional look!!!
Such a system would last us much longer than 4 digit
area codes. expanding the system can be done with
no pain!!! just use unused numbers.
And their is no pain of changing area-codes for a very-long time once
this system is established!!!!!!!!
1+ dialing
-----------
Also 1+ calling to most people means toll
lets keep it that way!!!
ie do not force us to dial 1+ for local calls
many might dial a long distance call without
knowing!!!
using 1+ for everything would keep companies such as AT&T, Sprint, MCI
happy since they would get more business
from calls people think were local!!!
George
If area codes are mergered on a state by state bases
may be we should consider the following solution to
assign new area codes together with your nine digit solution!!!
for new york 697 (NYS)
California 227 (CAS)
etc.
where all us states "and territories were possible"
have area codes ending with "7"
for canada we could use
for British Columbia we would consider
222 (BCC) British Columbia Canada.
662 (ONC) Ontario Canada
were all canadian provinces/teritories have area codes
ending with "2"
by using such codes if we can do so will make
it easy to id location by area-code. In order
to do so we must come with a plan to avoid the
top problem. ie may be all canadian codes could end in
7 for canada ie for ontario 662.
Other countries could end with "9" or X
ie Domincia could become 369 (DOX)
Such a system would have to be put in slowly over several years
2 or 3. But once we all move to such a system. Area codes
would be less confusing. ie. You would know
New York State would have a code of "697"
Linc Madison
> If area codes are mergered on a state by state bases
> may be we should consider the following solution to
> assign new area codes together with your nine digit solution!!!
>
>
> for new york 697 (NYS)
> California 227 (CAS)
> etc.
9-digit numbers for the whole state of California would exhaust some time
around the year 2020 at current rates of use. By the year 2000, California
will have about 26 area codes, and most of them are splitting about every
8 years. Not a very good solution, especially since less populous states
may be only just filling up their current 7-digit space by then.
Furthermore, the migration to 9-digit numbers by tacking on two digits
based on the existing area code to the front of the number doesn't allow
for any permissive dialing period -- you wouldn't be able to distinguish
between 91-555-1234 and 915-5512 except by waiting for extra digits,
which is an unacceptable answer.
The plan is not very realistic.
We are going to continue with 3-digit area codes and 7-digit local numbers,
with the attendant introduction of more and more area codes, for at least
a couple more decades. What will happen then hasn't been decided, but one
possibility is 4-digit area codes and 8-digit local numbers, although the
distinction between area code and local number will be blurred, since you
will dial both on all calls long before the next expansion comes.
--
**Permission is specifically WITHHELD for the collection of this
address for any e-mail unrelated to the subject of this article.**
Linc Madison * San Francisco, Calif. * Tel...@Eureka.vip.best.com
Michael Sproull
George (geo...@ccs.com) wrote:
: If area codes are mergered on a state by state bases
: may be we should consider the following solution to
: assign new area codes together with your nine digit solution!!!
: for new york 697 (NYS)
: California 227 (CAS)
: etc.
: where all us states "and territories were possible"
: have area codes ending with "7"
One small problem:
would 637 be Maryland (MD), Maine (ME), North Dakota (ND),
or Nebraska (NE)?
Wally Roberts
Linc Madison wrote:
>
> We are going to continue with 3-digit area codes and 7-digit local numbers,
> with the attendant introduction of more and more area codes, for at least
> a couple more decades. What will happen then hasn't been decided, but one
> possibility is 4-digit area codes and 8-digit local numbers, although the
> distinction between area code and local number will be blurred, since you
> will dial both on all calls long before the next expansion comes.
Do you have any idea why we don't use all those unused "thousand-level" numbers
out in the sticks? For example, June Lake, California uses up 10,000 assignable
numbers, 619-648-XXXX. June Lake was served by a SxS until a few years ago, which
only had the 7XXX level active. Why not let June Lake have only 648-7XXXX and perhaps
648-8XXX, then release the other 8,000 numbers for use elsewhere in the 619 NPA.
I realize this would require additional smarts in the toll routing for the network to
look at the 619-648-X to route properly, but it seems it would be worth it to free up
all those lost numbers in small communities
Regards,
Wally Roberts
------------------------------
Primary Web Site (California):
http://www.terps.com/terps/
Mirror Site (Maryland):
http://www.wally.com/
Linc Madison
In article <322455...@mailhost.primenet.com>, Wally Roberts
<ez...@mailhost.primenet.com> wrote:
> Do you have any idea why we don't use all those unused "thousand-level"
> numbers out in the sticks? For example, June Lake, California uses up
> 10,000 assignable numbers, 619-648-XXXX. June Lake was served by a SxS
> until a few years ago, which only had the 7XXX level active. Why not
> let June Lake have only 648-7XXXX and perhaps 648-8XXX, then release the
> other 8,000 numbers for use elsewhere in the 619 NPA.
There are a number of problems involved. This scheme could work if you
had assigned a couple of thousands to June Lake, a couple to Crestview,
and maybe a couple to Lee Vining -- towns in close proximity to one
another, so that the difference in the thousands digit has a material
effect only on very nearby areas. (The distance between the towns is
minor compared to the distance to Denver or Chicago, for example, so
only very nearby points need to account for the subdivided prefix in
their rate tables.) But suppose you assigned some of those thousands
to some arbitrary point in the 619 (soon to be 760) NPA, like Calexico,
several hundred miles away in a different LATA. Even if you restricted
use of the unused thousands from June Lake to other points in the Los
Angeles LATA, you could still be talking about hundreds of miles.
More particularly, in order to do this, you would have to move the
neighboring communities out of their existing prefixes and into the
unused thousands from another community. I think it would be fair to
say that you should expect some resistance, quite possibly of the
12-gauge variety. "What do you MEAN we in Springfield have to change
our phone numbers to Shelbyville numbers just so those pigs in Capital
City can have more cellphones??" If you had done this at the very
origin of the numbering scheme, it would be workable, but you can't
retrofit it now.
Then the other problem is, what if one of these communities sharing
the prefix outgrows its allotment of thousands, and there are no more
thousands left in that prefix? It would be very confusing for June
Lake to have 648-7XXX and -8XXX and 555-3XXX, but not 648-2XXX or
555-4XXX, for example. It would be confusing at both a technical
level (route & rate tables) and at a user interface level.
> I realize this would require additional smarts in the toll routing for
> the network to look at the 619-648-X to route properly, but it seems it
> would be worth it to free up all those lost numbers in small communities
More to the point, those lost thousands aren't the big problem driving
NPAs to exhaustion. The 619 NPA is splitting because of the growth in
cities like San Diego; consolidating a few rural towns wouldn't help
enough to make a noticeable difference.
On the other hand, allowing allocation of competing local carriers by the
thousands digit in newly-created prefixes would be a great idea. There
are plenty of companies that can't reasonably claim that they're going to
use more than a few hundred numbers in a given rate center (e.g., San
Francisco 2) before the end of 1998. Instead of assigning four prefixes
for four alternate local telcos to compete with, split one prefix into
four blocks by thousands, leaving the -0XXX and -1XXX for emergency
expansion. THAT would make a significant dent in the demand for new
prefixes in many of the area codes rapidly approaching exhaustion.
John R Levine
>Do you have any idea why we don't use all those unused "thousand-level" numbers
>out in the sticks? For example, June Lake, California uses up 10,000 assignable
>numbers, 619-648-XXXX. June Lake was served by a SxS until a few years ago, which
>only had the 7XXX level active. Why not let June Lake have only 648-7XXXX and perhaps
>648-8XXX, then release the other 8,000 numbers for use elsewhere in the 619 NPA.
It'd be a billing nightmare. Pretty much all the billing software in use
in North America uses the NXX-NXX to determine the location you called. I
gather there's a few places in northern Canada that split prefixes the way
you suggest, but they're so far in the boondocks that other than a few nearby
towns, they're in the same rate band anyway.
It turns out that a lot of the area code exhaustion is due to competitive
local access providers grabbing large numbers of prefixes since under the
current rules, you need a separate prefix per rate center per carrier. MCI
has proposed splitting prefixes the way you've suggested, but a different
proposal I've seen would use the thousands digit in small towns to indicate
the carrier, e.g. 555-1XXX could be MCI, 555-2XXX MFS, 555-3XXX TCG, and
whoever. This would require some routing updates but at least the billing
wouldn't break. They'll have to bite the bullet and do a whole lot more
than this anyway when they implement local number portability in a couple
of years.
--
John R. Levine, IECC, POB 640 Trumansburg NY 14886 +1 607 387 6869
jo...@iecc.com "Space aliens are stealing American jobs." - Stanford econ prof
Mark J. Cuccia
Bob Tabac wrote:
(text referring to possible nine-digit local numbers in NANP, SNIPPED)
> 1+ dialing
>
> Also 1+ calling to most people means toll
> lets keep it that way!!!
>
> ie do not force us to dial 1+ for local calls
> many might dial a long distance call without knowing!!!
>
> using 1+ for everything would keep companies such as AT&T, Sprint, MCI
> happy since they would get more business from calls people think were
> local!!!
In your last statement, if you mean that 1+ a 'local' number
would/could/should also go through, but via the primary toll carrier, I
don't think that would be the case.
We still presently have LATA's in the U.S.
Calls within a LATA -- the dialed 'NXX-NXX' is in the same LATA -- are still
presently routed via the local telco. It may carry a toll charge, but then
again it may be 'local' (i.e. 'free' or low(?)-charge 'message units' or
'measured rate', etc.
Calls to 'NXX-NXX' codes outside of the LATA route via the primary chosen
Long Distance company for that line.
Some of the above is in the process of change. Some states do allow you to
choose your primary intra-LATA toll carrier. "Local" calls still route via
the local telco, but intra-LATA toll calls (i.e. NXX-NXX points within the
LATA, but not considered 'local') route via the chosen primary intra-LATA
company, which does not necessarily have to be the local telephone company,
NOR the chosen inTER-LATA long distance carrier.
For those places which do allow a 1+ before a ten-digit LOCAL area number,
the call is supposed to route via the LOCAL telephone company, at LOCAL
rates (i.e. measured local, or monthly-flat-rate 'free').
Some places (for example, Chicago metro) *REQUIRE* a *MANDATORY* '1+' before
*LOCAL* calls in the adjacent area code, even if just next-door, or across
the street. The call doesn't go to AT&T/Sprint/MCI/etc., but rather
Ameritech (formerly Illinois Bell), the LOCAL telco.
OF COURSE, a great deal of this might be undergoing changes, as local
telephone company COMPETITION is being introduced.
But since your initial point-of-access is via your subscribed local telco,
the company which would give you 'dialtone' after you lift your handset
closing an electrical loop circuit between you and the central office
switch, then THEY would be your 'primary' carrier for LOCAL calls, local
being based on the dialed NXX-NXX, whether or not you dialed an initial
'1+'. However, competition might mean varying size local calling areas,
depending on who you get local telco dialtone service from.
MARK J. CUCCIA PHONE/WRITE/WIRE: HOME: (USA) Tel: CHestnut 1-2497
WORK: mcu...@mailhost.tcs.tulane.edu |4710 Wright Road| (+1-504-241-2497)
Tel:UNiversity 5-5954(+1-504-865-5954)|New Orleans 28 |fwds on no-answr to
Fax:UNiversity 5-5917(+1-504-865-5917)|Louisiana(70128)|cellular/voicemail
Wally Roberts
Mark J. Cuccia wrote:
> Some of the above is in the process of change. Some states do allow you to
> choose your primary intra-LATA toll carrier. "Local" calls still route via
> the local telco, but intra-LATA toll calls (i.e. NXX-NXX points within the
> LATA, but not considered 'local') route via the chosen primary intra-LATA
> company, which does not necessarily have to be the local telephone company,
> NOR the chosen inTER-LATA long distance carrier.
In California, we now have intra-LATA toll competition but not equal access.
All intra-LATA IXC calls require IXC company code plus 11 digits. If I call
my neighbor via AT&T, it is a toll call--no default to the LEC's toll-free
map.
James Bellaire
geo...@ccs.com (George) writes:
>If area codes are mergered on a state by state bases
>may be we should consider the following solution to
>assign new area codes together with your nine digit solution!!!
> for new york 697 (NYS)
> California 227 (CAS)
I tried this theory once ... it has troubles ...
For Missouri MO = 667
For Minnesotta MN = 667
For Nebraska NE = 637
For Maine ME = 637
For Maryland MD = 637
For Michigan MI = 647
For Ohio OH = 647
For Iowa IA = 427
For Georgia GA = 427
Sorry - It's not simple enough ...
James
Feico Nater
In the Netherlands (15 million inhabitants) all numbers have nine specific
digits. This seems very redundant, but it has been proven to be required.
Shortening the numbers of a much larger country to nine digits seems like folly
to me.
--
Feico Nater
Bob Goudreau
Feico Nater (eff...@worldaccess.nl) wrote:
: In the Netherlands (15 million inhabitants) all numbers have nine specific
: Shortening the numbers of a much larger country to nine digits seems like folly
: to me.
I don't thing anyone was suggesting that; rather, they were talking
about *extending* local numbers in the NANP from 7 to 9 digits.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Bob Goudreau Data General Corporation
goud...@dg-rtp.dg.com 62 Alexander Drive
+1 919 248 6231 Research Triangle Park, NC 27709, USA
jeff smith
As I understand if we were to move to a nine digit area code system
much of the required splits could be reduced for at least 10-20 years.
and many area codes can be combined ie one per state.
that suggestion that area codes be 227 or californa etc won't work
since that code can be associated with other states.
If we however combine area codes on a per-state basis
and goto a nine digit number scheme splits could be reduced
ie california under this scheme would need a new area code in 2021 or so
the 3(area code) + 9(local number)
is similar to 4(area code) + 8(local number)
but is better since it would result in fewer splits!!!!!
:-)
(I know splits/overlays are a nessary evil
but lets at least find a way to reduce them!!!)
John Cropper
On Sep 04, 1996 20:40:37 in article <Re: 9 (Nine) Digit Phone Numbers
nanp>, 'sm...@mfg.com (jeff smith)' wrote:
>As I understand if we were to move to a nine digit area code system
>much of the required splits could be reduced for at least 10-20 years.
>and many area codes can be combined ie one per state.
>that suggestion that area codes be 227 or californa etc won't work
>since that code can be associated with other states.
>
>If we however combine area codes on a per-state basis
>and goto a nine digit number scheme splits could be reduced
>ie california under this scheme would need a new area code in 2021 or so
>the 3(area code) + 9(local number)
>is similar to 4(area code) + 8(local number)
>but is better since it would result in fewer splits!!!!!
states who older phone systems are HARD WIRED for seven-digit numbers and
would have to be replaced?
You'd be outvoted in your idea by a 5-2 margin, as a great deal of rural
states still have telcos using the older technology...
--
John Cropper * NiS / NexComm
Unsolicited "junk" e-mail will be * PO Box 277
referred to sender's ISP. * Pennington, NJ USA 08534-0277
Congratulations to Patrick Towson & * Inside NJ: 609.637.9434
Telecom Digest on their 15th * Toll Free: 888.NPA.NFO2 (672.6362)
anniversary of public service. * Fax : 609.637.9430
Keep up the great work! * email: psy...@usa.pipeline.com