Area code 533 assigned for personal communications services [Telecom]
Adam H. Kerman
communications services. I had no idea these featurs were so popular.
Is there any chance that huge chunks of numbering space were wasted and
should have been reclaimed first?
It's announced in Planning Letter 399, dated October 16.
hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com
> Area code 500 is exhausted, and 533 has been assigned for personal
> communications services. I had no idea these featurs were so popular.
What are "personal communications services"?
John Levine
>Area code 500 is exhausted, and 533 has been assigned for personal
>communications services. I had no idea these featurs were so popular.
>
>Is there any chance that huge chunks of numbering space were wasted and
>should have been reclaimed first?
If you look at the assignment list, which is by NXX, they're almost
all assigned to Verizon Wireless and Cingular/AT&T, and the first
chunk of 533 is to Cingular. I presume they wouldn't be asking for
more if they couldn't show NANPA that they were in use, but I've never
seen a 500 number in use, either.
R's,
John
Adam H. Kerman
I don't know what these numbers are used for today. I've never seen a
phone company marketing the service.
It was my understanding that 500 was a non-geographical area code that
was originally internal to a long distance provider. A subscriber had
this number pointed to a particular phone, that could be anywhere in
the country.
To call the subscriber, one had to know what long distance company he
subscribed to if the PIC had to be dialed. One wouldn't know how the
call was distance rated in advance as it was based on the location of
the terminating number, which wouldn't be known to the caller. I
assume if the subscriber and the caller were both subscribed to the
same long distance provider that the calls were charged at the
caller's long distance rates, but if the caller was forced to use
casual calling rates, the call would be absurdly expensive.
At some point, this was changed to an entirely different type of
service. I have no idea what it is today, or how to subscribe to it,
or why I would want to subscribe to it. And I'm totally mystified as
to how a service that no one uses managed to run out of prefixes.
John Mayson
Good questions; I'm still not sure I understand it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Area_code_500
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personal_Communications_Service_(NANP)
John
--
John Mayson <jo...@mayson.us>
Austin, Texas, USA
Thad Floryan
> hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com wrote:
>> On Oct 27, 8:31 pm, "Adam H. Kerman" <a...@chinet.com> wrote:
>
>>> Area code 500 is exhausted, and 533 has been assigned for personal
>>> communications services. I had no idea these featurs were so
>>> popular.
> It was my understanding that 500 was a non-geographical area code that
> was originally internal to a long distance provider. A subscriber had
> this number pointed to a particular phone, that could be anywhere in
> the country.
> At some point, this was changed to an entirely different type of
> service. I have no idea what it is today, or how to subscribe to it,
> or why I would want to subscribe to it. And I'm totally mystified as
> to how a service that no one uses managed to run out of prefixes.
Curious, I entered "500-123-4567" to Google.
The number of Google "hits" is reasonably large. Here's one reasonably
good explanation of "500" from
<http://www.lincmad.com/nongeographic.html>:
Personal Communications Services (a.k.a. "the Other PCS") in this
context refers not to cellular telephones, but rather to so-called
"follow-me" numbers. The idea was to have a single number, say (500)
123-4567, that you could program to ring your home phone from 6 to 10
p.m., go directly to voicemail at night, and ring your desk at work
during the day. The number could also have some sort of response menu,
along the lines of "press 1 for voicemail, 2 for fax, 3 for
cellphone." Some implementations also allowed the same 500 number to
be used for caller-pays or called-party-pays: dialing 1-500-xxx-xxxx,
the caller would pay the cost of the call, but dialing 0-500-xxx-xxxx,
the caller could enter a 4-digit PIN to charge the call to the owner
of the number. However, in spite of some attempts to keep telesleaze
out of the 500 number space, some unscrupulous operators exploited a
feature that allowed 500 numbers to forward internationally, with the
additional charge borne by the caller with only a "press 1 to accept"
warning, if that.
The 533 code was assigned as an expansion of 500, although no one is
quite sure why it was assigned, since demand for 500 numbers has been
steadily decreasing. The assignment was subsequently withdrawn. As of
2008-05-23, NANPA projects activating 533 in the second half of 2009;
however, 533 has been "within 6 to 18 months" for several years
now. Bottom line: I'll believe it when I see it. In particular, as of
2008-01-01, there were 79 available (533) prefixes to be assigned. In
the first 5 months of 2008, 43 of those were handed out; however, 171
other (533) prefixes were returned or reclaimed, leaving 207 available
for assignment. That's not a very intimidating demand curve from where
I sit.
John Levine
>was originally internal to a long distance provider. A subscriber had
>this number pointed to a particular phone, that could be anywhere in
>the country.
No, that's 700 numbers. The idea of 500 numbers was that they were
intended for personal follow-me service and the like, charged to the
caller.
Since you can't predict how much a 500 number will cost, not unlike
a 900 number, I figured they would fail. From the little I can see
on Google, I get the impression that the 500 numbers in use don't
cost anything to the caller.
R's,
John
Adam H. Kerman
>> that was originally internal to a long distance provider. A
>> subscriber had this number pointed to a particular phone, that
>> could be anywhere in the country.
Correction: These can point to numbers outside the country. Your
telephone bill might contain a not so nice surprise!
> No, that's 700 numbers. The idea of 500 numbers was that they were
> intended for personal follow-me service and the like, charged to the
> caller.
So these aren't sold by long-distance providers? Is the 500 number
limited to a particular provider or can they be ported?
> Since you can't predict how much a 500 number will cost, not unlike
> a 900 number, I figured they would fail. From the little I can see
> on Google, I get the impression that the 500 numbers in use don't
> cost anything to the caller.
I don't get it, then.
John Stahl
> Area code 500 is exhausted, and 533 has been assigned for personal
> communications services. I had no idea these featurs were so
> popular.
History indicates that when the FCC was first considering "Cellular"
services (back in the 1970's), they discounted the European plan
already in effect which assigned specific AC's (NPA's) to their
burgeoning Cellular service so that all NXX's (exchanges) in these
NPA's would only be for cell phones.
Of course as we all know, instead the FCC only allowed the early
cellular service supplier's to use NXX's in the already issued
(land-line) NPA covering their specific initial service area(s) which
were the largest MSA's (starting with number 1 and licensing each
successive MSA) until all had two carriers.
Of course we all know now that the FCC had no idea how large this
service would grow and that they would have to put together new NPA
plans with over-lays, etc. to ultimately cover the demand for
telephone numbers in each NPA area until where we find ourselves
today. Had they had a crystal ball they might have better chosen the
European plan with special NPA (just like this new FCC release of AC
533) for this growing service.
So, perhaps, the FCC has finally "seen the light" and is now issuing
special NPA's for mobile (cellular) services.
As a side to this, the FCC just recently indicated that they might
want to take back some of the TV spectrum already reissued for public
services as the world is going more wireless-ly every day. Perhaps
they do now finally see that wireless is here to stay (after all more
and more consumer's are dropping their land-lines every day for the
mobile "leash"!) and are finally scrambling to cover the future needs
for (these) services.
John Stahl
Telecom/Data Consultant
Aljon Enterprises
hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com
> As a side to this, the FCC just recently indicated that they might
> want to take back some of the TV spectrum already reissued for public
> services as the world is going more wireless-ly every day. Perhaps
> they do now finally see that wireless is here to stay (after all more
> and more consumer's are dropping their land-lines every day for the
> mobile "leash"!) and are finally scrambling to cover the future needs
> for (these) services.
Dropping one's landline for a mobile phone has certain advantages,
such as the cell phone becomming the "universal number" to reach the
person anywhere they might be. In certain situations it could also be
cheaper.
But there are certainly disadvantages to go all wireless, too:
Can one get broadband computer services from a teleco or cable company
if they don't have voice service? That is, can you get DSL without an
associated voice line?
But with cell phones often times the meter is running and it isn't
cheap. For instance, as an individual I make and receive a number of
social calls between 7 pm and 9 pm weeknights. I believe on most
cellphone plans that is still 'prime time' and the meter is running.
Some (many?) cellphone plans consider major holidays as still
weekdays, not weekends, so calls made on Labor Day are also running up
the meter.
All of us have to call our banks, credit card, health insurance, etc.,
and sit on hold. We don't think about the cost because almost all
such calls are via 800 numbers. But on a cell phone, during prime
time the meter is running.
This translates to someone either going into overtime or getting a
high-end plan that has lots of extra minutes. High end plans are
pricey.
The other issue is reliability. Cell phones are significantly less
reliable than traditional landlines. Batteries can wear out, and need
to be charged, something one can forget to do or find themselves
unable to do. Signals might be blocked by buildings or odd
atmospheres. Calls get cut off. Phones themselves are easily lost or
break. Sound qualtiy is lousy.
I wonder how many traditional landlines are being _permanently_ lost
to wireless, as opposed to being lost to alternative carriers, like
cableTV providers.
Wes...@aol.com
al...@stny.rr.com writes:
> Of course we all know now that the FCC had no idea how large this
> service would grow and that they would have to put together new NPA
> plans with over-lays, etc. to ultimately cover the demand for
> telephone numbers in each NPA area until where we find ourselves
> today. Had they had a crystal ball they might have better chosen the
> European plan with special NPA (just like this new FCC release of AC
> 533) for this growing service.
I can't imagine anyone would call a cell-only number to call a local
plumber, handyman, or any other outfit publishing such a number in
their advertisements. Of course, Europe is generally caller-pays so I
don't think any cell phone number could be a viable alternative as a
number someone could use to call a local business.
Wes Leatherock
wes...@aol.com
wlea...@yahoo.com
danny burstein
> I can't imagine anyone would call a cell-only number to call a local
> plumber, handyman, or any other outfit publishing such a number in
> their advertisements.
Well, sure, if you're calling the office of a plumbing outfit that has
25 plumbers and fifty helpers and a dozen trucks..
But _plenty_ of businesses of this type are just a couple, or half
dozen... people, some of whom could easily be just "on call"
stringers.
And for many of those, yes, the public number is, indeed, the
cellphone the boss carries around since she'd rather "get" your call
in live time than hope you'll leave a msg on an answering machine....
--
_____________________________________________________
Knowledge may be power, but communications is the key
dan...@panix.com
[to foil spammers, my address has been double rot-13 encoded]
John Levine
> History indicates that when the FCC was first considering "Cellular"
> services (back in the 1970's), they discounted the European plan
> already in effect which assigned specific AC's (NPA's) to their
> burgeoning Cellular service so that all NXX's (exchanges) in these
> NPA's would only be for cell phones.
Well, sure. There weren't enough spare NPAs to do a reasonable
geographic overlay. I suppose they could have taken the European
approach of making the mobile space one giant rate center, but at the
time, long distance was expensive, and it was considered important to
assign mobiles to geographic places. I don't know whether
mobile-landline portability was always planned, or if they later
realized it was possible.
> So, perhaps, the FCC has finally "seen the light" and is now issuing
> special NPA's for mobile (cellular) services.
No, they are not. See www.nanpa.com for actual facts.
R's,
John
John Levine
On Wed, 28 Oct 2009, "Adam H. Kerman" said:
> Correction: These can point to numbers outside the country. Your
> telephone bill might contain a not so nice surprise!
So can an 800 number. The price of a 500 number is set by the carrier
providing the number.
> John Levine <jo...@iecc.com> wrote:
>> No, that's 700 numbers. The idea of 500 numbers was that they were
>> intended for personal follow-me service and the like, charged to the
>> caller.
>
> So these aren't sold by long-distance providers? Is the 500 number
> limited to a particular provider or can they be ported?
Like I said, nearly all of them are assigned to the big wireless
carriers. I don't see any inter-carrier portability.
>> a 900 number, I figured they would fail. From the little I can see
>> on Google, I get the impression that the 500 numbers in use don't
>> cost anything to the caller.
>
> I don't get it, then.
Me neither. I've never seen a 500 number in use other than one or two
used for arcane things like state educational dialup networks.
R's,
John
John Levine
> I can't imagine anyone would call a cell-only number to call a local
> plumber, handyman, or any other outfit publishing such a number in
> their advertisements. Of course, Europe is generally caller-pays so
> I don't think any cell phone number could be a viable alternative as
> a number someone could use to call a local business.
I can assure you that when I was in England last year, as often as not
the phone number on tradesmen's trucks was a mobile.
Although it costs more to call a mobile than a landline if you are
calling from a landline or from outside the country, most mobile
phones have bundled minute plans that treat mobile and landine the
same. This makes the practical effect of caller pays much less than
it is here.
Of course, they still have separate number spaces and they'll never
have portability between landline and mobile like we do here.
R's,
John
Steve Grandi
To quote from a puff piece at
http://www.comcare.org/uploads/OnStar%20PR.pdf
OnStar received the Cellular Telecommunications & Internet
Association's (CTIA) first Future Vision Award for great strides in
the areas of data products, software products and end-user
applications. OnStar employees were honored in 1999 with the General
Motors Boss Kettering Award for the first implementation of a national
wireless network using a non-geographic area code (500) to deliver
OnStar mobile communication services.
--
Steve Grandi
National Optical Astronomy Observatory/AURA Inc., Tucson AZ USA
Internet: gra...@noao.edu Voice: +1 520 318-8228 FAX: +1 520 318-8360
Adam H. Kerman
>"Adam H. Kerman" wrote:
>> Area code 500 is exhausted, and 533 has been assigned for personal
>> communications services. I had no idea these featurs were so
>> popular.
> History indicates that when the FCC was first considering "Cellular"
> services (back in the 1970's), they discounted the European plan
> already in effect which assigned specific AC's (NPA's) to their
> burgeoning Cellular service so that all NXX's (exchanges) in these
> NPA's would only be for cell phones.
When was caller pays introduced? That type of service warrants a
non-geographical area code, but as long as incoming calls to cellular
phones are distance rated, then sharing existing area codes makes
sense.
> Of course as we all know, instead the FCC only allowed the early
> cellular service supplier's to use NXX's in the already issued
> (land-line) NPA covering their specific initial service area(s)
> which were the largest MSA's (starting with number 1 and licensing
> each successive MSA) until all had two carriers.
> Of course we all know now that the FCC had no idea how large this
> service would grow and that they would have to put together new NPA
> plans with over-lays, etc. to ultimately cover the demand for
> telephone numbers in each NPA area until where we find ourselves
> today. Had they had a crystal ball they might have better chosen the
> European plan with special NPA (just like this new FCC release of AC
> 533) for this growing service.
I do not agree with your analysis. The problem was waste of line
numbering space. If cell phone had to have rate centers so that
incoming calls could be distance rated (and outgoing long distance
calls in the old days), then the correct solution should have been FCC
rules for fulfilling line number requests neutrally.
Groups of cellular phone numbers rated to an exchange should have been
treated like PBXs, which generally require a block of numbers but not
an entire prefix.
Yeah, this might have taken extra equipment at the switch, but the
bill and keep system pretends that every cell phone company has a
physical presence at every central office, so what the hell.
Joseph Singer
> Of course we all know now that the FCC had no idea how large this
> service would grow and that they would have to put together new NPA
> plans with over-lays, etc. to ultimately cover the demand for
> telephone numbers in each NPA area until where we find ourselves
> today.
No matter how many times people repeat [the claim] that the main
reason for overlays was people using technology like cell phones, fax
machines, 'computer' lines or teenager additional lines, [in fact] the
main consumer of numbering space was the CLECs. At one point CLECs
could request a whole 10,000 block of numbers even if they were only
going to use several hundred. It's only now with thousands block
assignments that number assignments have dwindled. Number portability
also plays into it. The economy also has had an effect on numbers
assigned as well.
Wes...@aol.com
a...@chinet.com writes:
> Groups of cellular phone numbers rated to an exchange should have
> been treated like PBXs, which generally require a block of numbers
> but not an entire prefix.
I remember in the early days of cell phones two cell phone carriers in
Lawton, Oklahoma, each had only part of a prefix--the same prefix.
Wes Leatherock
wes...@aol.com
wlea...@yahoo.com
Adam Sampson
> Of course, Europe is generally caller-pays so I don't think any cell
> phone number could be a viable alternative as a number someone could
> use to call a local business.
This is certainly not the case -- mobile numbers are now the norm for
small businesses in the UK. Remember that the vast majority of people
are calling from a mobile in the first place, and the majority of the
calls they make (and, more likely, text messages they send) are to
other mobile phones already...
--
Adam Sampson <a...@offog.org> <http://offog.org/>
John Levine
Never. There were a few experiments with it using specific NPA-NXX
codes, but they all failed. Evidently the number of people who
thought they were so important that people would pay extra to call
them greatly exceeded the number who actually were. The few
references to 500 numbers I've seen suggest that the ones in use do
not cost anything to call.
> Groups of cellular phone numbers rated to an exchange should have
> been treated like PBXs, which generally require a block of numbers
> but not an entire prefix.
They were. I had a Cellular One number in Vermont in the 1980s which
was in a PBX block allocated from a NET (maybe it was NYNEX then)
prefix.
R's,
John
Adam H. Kerman
Isn't number portability actually a more efficient use of numbering
space? That way, if a caller migrates from a land line to a cell
phone or CLEC, then it's a number used out of the original pool, not
the expanded pool of numbers assigned to that exchange on behalf of
other phone companies. And then, if as much of the expanded pool is
reclaimed as possible, perhaps that frees up numbering blocks for
assignment elsewhere for actual increased demand for line number
assignment.
danny burstein
> No matter how many times people repeat [the claim] that the main
> reason for overlays was people using technology like cell phones,
> fax machines, 'computer' lines or teenager additional lines, [in
> fact] the main consumer of numbering space was the CLECs.
True for the most part, but in some areas the locals really were
running out of numbers... For example, in NYC where the "212" area
code was initially all five boroughs, they had to split into "212" and
"718". And when cellular service begand reaching the masses there was
the addition of "917".
(The later area code overlays in NYC were more due to that
semi-artificial scarcity you described).
Rob Warnock
+---------------
| But there are certainly disadvantages to go all wireless, too:
|
| Can one get broadband computer services from a teleco or cable company
| if they don't have voice service? That is, can you get DSL without an
| associated voice line?
Yes, at least in certain areas with certain vendors. E.g., my DSL
service is through Speakeasy (actually provisioned by Covad) and
that line is a separate pair to the CO and does *not* have any
voice service on the line.
+---------------
| I wonder how many traditional landlines are being _permanently_ lost
| to wireless, as opposed to being lost to alternative carriers, like
| cableTV providers.
+---------------
*LOTS!!* Recent estimates are that 25% have droppped landlines entirely,
and that the switch from wireline to cell has hit the tipping point:
http://www.economist.com/businessfinance/displaystory.cfm?story_id=14214847
Cutting the cord
America loses its landlines
Aug 13th 2009 | SAN FRANCISCO
From The Economist print edition
Ever greater numbers of Americans are disconnecting their home
telephones, with momentous consequences
...
Telecoms operators are seeing customers abandon landlines at
a rate of 700,000 per month. Some analysts now estimate that
25% of households in America rely entirely on mobile phones
(or cellphones, as Americans call them) -- a share that could
double within the next three years. If the decline of the landline
continues at its current rate, the last cord will be cut sometime
in 2025.
-Rob
-----
Rob Warnock <rp...@rpw3.org>
627 26th Avenue <URL:http://rpw3.org/>
San Mateo, CA 94403 (650)572-2607
John Levine
>> [In fact] the main consumer of numbering space was the CLECs. At
>> one point CLECs could request a whole 10,000 block of numbers even
>> if they were only going to use several hundred. It's only now with
>> thousands block assignments that number assignments have
>> dwindled. Number portability also plays into it.
> Isn't number portability actually a more efficient use of numbering
> space? That way, if a caller migrates from a land line to a cell
> phone or CLEC, then it's a number used out of the original pool, not
> the expanded pool of numbers assigned to that exchange on behalf of
> other phone companies. And then, if as much of the expanded pool is
> reclaimed as possible, perhaps that frees up numbering blocks for
> assignment elsewhere for actual increased demand for line number
> assignment.
That's certainly the idea.
One question to which I've never gotten a good answer is whether it's
possible to port a number to a switch if the switch doesn't have any
numbers of its own in the number's rate center. Around here we have
lots of smallish rate centers, and every rate center has at least one
ILEC switch. Without exception, the CLEC and mobile carriers'
switches are all in Syracuse, close to the tandem switch, even they
have local prefixes in many but not all of the rate centers.
I don't see any technical bar to porting to such a switch. For every
number there's the dialed number (DN) and the routing number (RN). If
the number hasn't been ported, the two numbers are the same, if it has
been ported, the RN is a number assigned to the switch, used to route
the call. All numbers ported to a particular switch typically have
the same RN. There's no evident technical reason why the DN and RN
would have to be in the same rate center, but I haven't been able to
tell whether there are policies requiring that they are.
If the DN and RN don't have to be in the same rate center, CLECs et
all would only have to get one thousands group assigned, so their
switch would have a RN, and could then port everything from anywhere
in the LATA. That would be about as efficient use of number space as
you could imagine.
R's,
John
Adam H. Kerman
> One question to which I've never gotten a good answer is whether
> it's possible to port a number to a switch if the switch doesn't
> have any numbers of its own in the number's rate center.
No, it's not possible, for that would mean true customer service.
I had the same land line number for 20 years. I tried to use reason
and logic to explain to Illinois Bell/Ameritech/SBC/AT&T that the
number portability database is a translation table that does not care
if the number points to a loop on a competitor's switch, a cell phone,
or a loop on a foreign switch in AT&T's network.
It fell on deaf ears.
If the federal regulation for number portability is on a rate center
basis, well, we all know that some locations in the rate center's
polygon may have a different wire center, so the concept of "foreign
switch" already exists in the logic of the translation table.
They used to have a nice service that allowed the number to ring at
two different locations both served by the same switch if someone is
relocating locally. The period of overlap was a month or two. You
could pay for a much longer period of overlaps, a few bucks extra a
month. They don't do that any more.
They no longer offer residential foreign exchange service, somewhat
expensive. I assume business foreign exchange service is still
offered, but I gave up at that point and had the number ported to a
cell phone.
> I don't see any technical bar to porting to such a switch.
As a friend of mine points out, finding the practical solution with
engineering is the easy part. The difficult part is changing the
nature of the social situation, the custom, or the politics that
retains the status quo.
David Kaye
> I can't imagine anyone would call a cell-only number to call a local
> plumber, handyman, or any other outfit publishing such a number in
> their advertisements.
I make my living this way. I have yellow pages ads and only one
phone, a cell phone. Nobody complains.
--
"You're in probably the wickedest, most corrupt city, most
Godless city in America." -- Fr Mullen, "San Francisco"
John Mayson
> Wes...@aol.com wrote:
>
>> I can't imagine anyone would call a cell-only number to call a local
>> plumber, handyman, or any other outfit publishing such a number in
>> their advertisements.
>
> I make my living this way. I have yellow pages ads and only one
> phone, a cell phone. Nobody complains.
How many would know? Various consumer protection agencies warn people
against relying on businesses with only a cell phone number. The idea
is you could be from out-of-town or fly-by-night. You didn't say
which business you were in. On a professional level I've worked with
sales professionals who have only a cell phone number, and that's
fine.
Back in March we had a huge hail storm here and roofing companies from
all over flooded the area trying to drum up business. I had a guy
with Missouri tags and a Georgia (770) phone number ask what the bids
were I had received and he'd knock a little off. Various government
officials via the media were warning people about these sort of
operations.
I knew a guy who had a glass and roofing business (he sold it years
ago). He got a landline number and just forwarded it to a cell phone.
David Kaye
> How many would know? Various consumer protection agencies warn
> people against relying on businesses with only a cell phone number.
> The idea is you could be from out-of-town or fly-by-night. You
> didn't say which business you were in.
I do computer tech support, mostly for Windows machines. Nobody cares
that I only have a cell phone, but then as you say, how would they
know? They also allow me to remove computers from their homes when
there is extensive stuff to do such as HD replacement, remounting
Windows, etc., and they have nothing from me but a business card --
without even an address on it.
BUT, and here's the big BUT -- I have an ad in the yellow pages. They
figure that if I'm willing to spend money on yellow pages advertising
then I must be fairly responsible, since, as we all know, yellow pages
advertising costs a lot. Thus, the expense of yp advertising tends to
be self-select a higher caliber of entrepreneur.
Long live the yellow pages!
Richard
> I can't imagine anyone would call a cell-only number to call a local
> plumber, handyman, or any other outfit publishing such a number in
> their advertisements.
In the USA, there is no way to tell whether a particular number in
your area code is a cell phone, especially considering number
portability, where you can have your land-line number re-assigned to a
cell phone.
Another way, which was used before number portability: In my town, a
one-man air-conditioner business lives so far out of town that the
wired phone lines don't reach him. He has a phone number with a
land-line prefix, with no phone line assigned to it. All calls are
auto-transfered to his cell phone.
Joseph Singer
> In the USA, there is no way to tell whether a particular number in
> your area code is a cell phone, especially considering number
> portability, where you can have your land-line number re-assigned to a
> cell phone.
Actually, there *is* a way to tell if a number is a mobile number or a
regular number. Go to https://www.wirelessamberalerts.org/index.jsp
and input a 10-digit number. The result will either give the name of
the mobile operating company or you'll get an error message that the
number you have input is not a wireless number.
If you wish to see who that area code and CO prefix holds that
numbering space go to http://www.telcodata.us. It even lists down to
'thousands' block in the numbering. It's still possible that the
number could have been ported to another entity e.g. it was held by
the ILEC and then transferred to the CLEC or vice versa.
Adam H. Kerman
>Mon, 02 Nov 2009 22:44:03 -0800 Richard <r...@richbonnie.com> wrote:
>> In the USA, there is no way to tell whether a particular number in
>> your area code is a cell phone, especially considering number
>> portability, where you can have your land-line number re-assigned
>> to a cell phone.
> Actually, there *is* a way to tell if a number is a mobile number or
> a regular number. Go to
> https://www.wirelessamberalerts.org/index.jsp and input a 10-digit
> number. The result will either give the name of the mobile
> operating company or you'll get an error message that the number you
> have input is not a wireless number.
> If you wish to see who that area code and CO prefix holds that
> numbering space go to http://www.telcodata.us/ . It even lists down
> to 'thousands' block in the numbering. It's still possible that the
> number could have been ported to another entity e.g. it was held by
> the ILEC and then transferred to the CLEC or vice versa.
So, is there a publicly accessible database of ported numbers? I know
the unsolicited call centers are required to purge their calling lists
of known numbers ported to cell phones, but has anyone made the
database available for single lookups?
And does the database include numbers ported from cell phone to land
lines?
ra...@vt.edu
> Actually, there *is* a way to tell if a number is a mobile number or a
> regular number. Go to https://www.wirelessamberalerts.org/index.jsp
> and input a 10-digit number. The result will either give the name of
> the mobile operating company or you'll get an error message that the
> number you have input is not a wireless number.
> If you wish to see who that area code and CO prefix holds that
> numbering space go to http://www.telcodata.us. It even lists down
> to 'thousands' block in the numbering. It's still possible that the
> number could have been ported to another entity e.g. it was held by
> the ILEC and then transferred to the CLEC or vice versa.
Well, the first web link correctly identified my wireless carrier for
a ported number that used to be a Verizon land line at my house. The
number was ported several years ago, so whatever databse they are
using has had time to catch up.
Bill Ranck
Blacksburg, Va.