Talk:North American numbering plan expansion

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Alternative plans

I belatedly (early part of this decade) thought of another way the NANP could be expanded for four-digit area codes. Belatedly, because once the 4NX codes began to be assigned, it was too late without "unscrambling the egg".

If the 4NX area codes, rather than the N9X codes, had been reserved, expansion could have been implemented by prefixing all existing area codes with a 4; e.g. 415 would become 4415. With no 441 area code (assigned to Bermuda), there would be no ambiguity. The switching network would be set up to study the next digit after an area code starting with a 4.

  • If 40x or 41x was dialed, it has to be a three-digit area code that begins with 4.
  • If 42x through 49x was dialed, it has to be a four-digit area code, one of the old codes prefixed with a 4 (e.g. 4206 for Seattle, 4406 for Montana, 4412 for Pittsburgh).

A special arrangement would be required to accommodate 8YY, 900 and such other special codes, just as it would be required for an N9XX format of expansion.

Once permissive dialing ends and the longer format is mandatory, the initial digit can be freed up to be any digit from 2 to 9, although the 5NXX codes could be reserved out of use in the unlikely event that a further expansion is required. GBC 21:56, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Actually, there still would be hope for such a plan. With the enormous lead-time available (possibly two decades), all existing 4NX area codes could be migrated elsewhere, with permissive dialing periods of great length as "compensation" for the bother of a change. Then, the N9X codes could be released for use and the 4NX codes reserved for expansion.
Not that I think NANPA would seriously consider it. GBC 23:10, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
This isn't really any different from using the N9X area codes; it's just a bit more awkward for the user to have to stuff a digit in the middle rather than at the start. The NANP designers seem to like to put key digits in the middle (witness the old N0/1X versus NNX), for reasons that are utterly unfanthomable to me. User:Hpa 06:14, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
Is it really necessary to have all phone numbers be the same number of digits? It seems to me that variable length numbers could make it possible for the system to change without necessarily forcing everybody to use a new number. All existing numbers would remain the same, while new numbers would have longer individual entries -- some prefixes would have 4-digit last parts, as now, whereas others would have seven-digit last parts. These could be preferentially assigned to numbers that aren't used all that often (e.g., numbers in private branch exchanges, numbers for pay phones or ATMs or other things with their own lines but which nobody calls or at least calls very often). aaronrp (talk) 21:37, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Neutrality

I thought it best to add the tag to the Other Proposals section, based upon the fact that one is clearly championed over the other in the article. Even if this is logical, it's not exactly neutral. The first example has a "drawback" statement, while the second has an "advantages" statement. Hopefully this can be reworded by someone with more knowledge on the subject. *Vendetta* (whois talk edits) 19:39, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Examples

Could someone put in some examples, please. I have no idea what N9X means or why I should care? What would the effects be on a particular phone number be? How would it change? 04:47, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Can't handle all the above, but I hope my little addition at least clarified the Ns and Xs. Jim.henderson 06:53, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
Obliged. 11:05, 20 August 2007 (UTC) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.102.132.76 (talk)
I added a few examples which should help clear things up. Hope that helps a bit. ^_^ Cmantito 06:39, 11 November 2007 (UTC)