Talk:North American Numbering Plan/Archive 1

Area code expansion
I reworked much of the text discussing the history of area code expansion, and better defining "splits" and "overlays", giving some examples of each.

However, this could probably use some editting to tighten it up a bit.

Kaszeta 13:35, 18 Aug 2004 (UTC)

KeithTyler revert 15 May
Just wondering why my edit is irrelevant while the original mention of '999' can stay...

I thought that 112 was the emergency number for the whole of Europe (plus GSM networks) but if that is incorrect then no problems.

It IS correct, as it stems from an EU directive. The number 112 is used alongside existing emergency numbers, such as 999 in the UK. It is also the worldwide GSM emergency number; again, alongside local numbers. (It is an EU requirement that emergency numbers be dialable on a GSM phone even when the keypad is locked; some only accept the sequence 1-1-2 and others accept that plus all national emergency numbers.)

Likewise, 00 is the international calling code in all EU countries as the result of a directive; Britain switched in 1995, for example. (FWIW, Bill Bryson, in one of his books, ridicules the EU for proposing a "country code" of 00 and failing to implement it, where in fact he was confusing a country code with the IDD code, which all EU countries had already implemented.)

Most other (non-EU) European countries have also adopted both 00 and 112, although this is not true of all the former USSR.

KeithTyler's reversion might make sense inasmuch as the text didn't have that much to do with the NANP, but it was factually correct.

--ProhibitOnions 22:10, 2005 May 30 (UTC)

dialing
how does the us system tell the difference between a local call and theese codes? is a prefix needed and if so why isn't it listed here? Plugwash 13:03, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

Generally, since NANP numbers are of the form +1-NXX-NXX-XXXX, dialing the leading "1" notes a long-distance call. However, from what I understand, there are a number of exceptions to the rule. I do know that if someone in North America wishes to call outside the NANP area, "011" must preceed the country code in order to denote that the call is going outside the NANP. Mhking 17:45, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * Plugwash, I'm not sure what you mean by "these codes". If you mean 911, 411, and so on, numbers of the form n11, where n is 2 to 9, are reserved and cannot be used as area codes or office codes (the first 3 digits of a 7-digit number). When the equipment sees "11" as the 2nd and 3rd digits dialled, it knows that's the end of the number and connects the call.
 * If you're wondering how the equipment tells between a 7-digit number and a 10-digit number, it's done differently in different areas. In some areas, 10-digit dialling is required, so there's no problem.  In other areas, a prefix is required: 0 or 1 has to prefix a 10-digit number; if the first number dialled is 2 to 9, the equipment expects a 7-digit number (unless of course it's an n11 number). What the "0" and "1" prefixes mean differs by area too. Indefatigable 22:06, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

A prefix which is a local (or adjacent) domestic area code is normally reserved so that it cannot also be the first three digits of the seven-digit local number in the same area. For instance, 613-612-0000 could be a valid number but something like 613-613-0000 or 819-613-0000 (where 613/819 are area codes in the Canadian capital Ottawa-Hull) will be reserved so that entire blocks of 10000 numbers will never be issued. That way, if the local switch sees 613- or 819- as the first three digits of any call dialled from Ottawa-Hull, Canada it knows to wait for seven more digits as those two are local area codes for that region and are not the prefixes for an individual seven-digit exchange. --carlb 04:25, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Long-distance prefix other than 1?
Another thing, the long-distance prefix hasn't always been 1. I remember in Lincoln, Nebraska (a GTE area) in the early 1980s it was something else, like 122. Can anyone confirm this? --ProhibitOnions 11:17, 2005 Jun 15 (UTC)


 * Are you sure this wasn't on a PBX system, or involved using a long-distance access code (like today's 10-10-220 et al, though they have not always been that long)? - Keith D. Tyler &para; 18:26, 9 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Nope, Keith, it was what you had to dial from payphones, which was my main interaction with GTE at the time. I'm not sure about other lines. ProhibitOnions 20:14, 25 December 2005 (UTC)


 * I remember when long distance access in Chattnooga was 211, or maybe it was 112.Jm546 01:16, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, there were different long-distance prefixes in different areas at one time, and in many cases no prefix was needed at all. It depended mostly upon the type of switching equipment which was in use in any given place as to how DDD (Direct Distance Dialing) was originally implemented.

Many large metropolitan areas used common-control switching systems (panel & crossbar) which needed no DDD access code. The registers which accepted the number could just analyze the dialed digits as they were received, wait for the appropriate total number of digits, then route the call accordingly (e.g. if the second digit dialed was "0" or "1" then the caller was dialing an area code, so it knew to wait for ten digits in total). That's how it was in New York City through to the 1970's, for example.

However, step-by-step switching (Strowger, Stromberg-Carlson XY, or similar) was in widespread use in rural areas and in many small-to-medium sized towns (and a good few larger cities too). These worked a completely different way from the common-control switches, and a prefix was needed to tell the equipment that the number following was to be sent into the DDD network rather than into the local switching train.

As many step-by-step areas already used codes such as 113 for information, 114 for repair service, and so on, it was relatively easy to add another such code for DDD access, and 112 became the common choice. Many of these areas later adopted methods which allowed the DDD prefix of just "1" to coexist with the 11x service codes, or they switched over when the 113/114 codes were changed to 411/611. But certainly the 112 prefix (along with the other 11x service codes) survived into the 1980's in some places.

There were some other variations in some areas though, especially in rural communities with party lines. Long-distance dialing in these places often required "1" followed by a digit to identify which party was calling, so for example, you might always have had to dial 14 for a long-distance, while others on your same party line would dial 13, 15, 16, etc.

The 211 code mentioned above was established as the code for reaching a long-distance operator in many places long before DDD. It grew up alongside the use of 411 for information, 611 for repair etc. In those areas which used 11x service codes instead, the long-distance operator was often reached by dialing 110, although that would only be where there were enough calls to warrant the separate number. Los Angeles was such a place. - PBC1966 (talk) 11:24, 22 April 2010 (UTC)


 * 112 was originally used in Canada, but London, for example, changed to 1 in 1967, apparently coincident with the introduction of a new exchange that may have taken over long distance switching. 112 was used in parts of Saskatchewan as late as about 1980, but was universalized as 1.  112 was last used in Canada by BC Tel, throughout their operating area plus Prince Rupert, but was flash cut to 1 at the end of September 1985.


 * The 11x codes were originally used to compensate for a design flaw with the candlestick telephone. When the earpiece was lifted off the hook, it could accidentally generate a single pulse.  The exchanges were designed to absorb excess 1s, so you could have dialed 1112, 11112, or 11111111112 (or more) and it would absorb the excess until you dialed something other than 1.


 * When IDDD was first introduced in Canada (in Toronto and Montreal), the limitations of the exchanges prevented use of 011, so Bell used 9109 temporarily. I remember seeing this in telephone directories for those cities. As to other DDD codes, I think I saw 10 for a place in Alaska, which probably helped route the call to another exchange that could process the call. GBC (talk) 04:50, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Cuba?
Does anyone know whether Cuban participation in the NANP was foreseen? It had (and has) a US-built telephone system and would have been an obvious candidate, prior to 1958. --ProhibitOnions 11:32, 2005 Jun 15 (UTC)


 * It's not clear when the Caribbean was added to the NANP. says that initially only USA and Canada were in NANP. And coincidentally  says that the Caribbean was added in 1958, while Cuba was in the middle of the revolution that would seat Castro. So Cuba may have been excluded at first for practial reasons of political unrest, and never added due to the lost of U.S. ties under Castro socialism. - Keith D. Tyler &para; 20:39, 11 November 2005 (UTC)


 * www.nanpa.com area code lookup Enter "809" there, it says 809 was first deployed in 1958-- the same year of the British West Indies Federation and when many of the British Colonies started pushing for independence from Britain. Suposedly, one of the reasons why most of the British West Indies (BWI) received the North American area codes was because of their ties to Canada.  Especially via companies like the Halifax and Bermudas Telegraph Company and the Direct West India Cable Company -- see the history (for what is now) the Cable and Wireless company. CaribDigita 01:47, 16 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Well yes, I knew that these countries joined in 1958 (many thanks for the story behind the Canadian connection!), but presumably it took, say, 2-4 years of planning before these countries were able to join the NANP, as it would have been a complicated technical change that would need to be approved by the various authorities and coordinated with international bodies. So the planning for the West Indies must have begun significantly before 1958, at some time in the early or mid-1950s.


 * Cuba's revolution did not occur until the beginning of 1959, and Castro's policies did not become definitively anti-US for two years. What's more, Cuba's phone system was US-built (based on my observations, there are still lots of Western Electric phones and probably switching equipment in use there), and so it must have been either discussed or even planned at some time between about 1954 and 1959-61 that Cuba, like some of its Caribbean neighbors, could also join the NANP. However, I haven't found anything either confirming or refuting this. ProhibitOnions 02:44, 16 November 2005 (UTC)


 * ETECSA Cuba's telephone company. CaribDigita 05:19, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

I happened across something that says Castro nationalised the phone company there(well duh) and compensated CONTEL. That probably means he may have been uninvited to the NANP. CaribDigita 20:18, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

US-centric area code page titles
I've run into the rather valid comment that the naming of the NPA-specific articles are titled ambiguously but are actually US-centric.

US (or NANP) is not the the only place in the world that has its own "area codes"; and in no way are the NANP area codes unique within the area codes of the world, as they are only specific to their country (or in NANPs case, country code).

I propose that all articles of the type Area_code_XXX be changed to NANP_area_code_XXX, with the former ambiguous titles eventually phased out or replaced with disambiguation pages where appropriate.

Yes this is a lot of moves, but that would be a poor argument against repairing a US POV in article titling.

- Keith D. Tyler &para; 18:10, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

PS: I'm posting here and in other NANP-related articles because, to my surprise, there is no WikiProject Telecommunications or anything similar. - Keith D. Tyler &para; 18:28, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Example: Article "212 Area code" would become "1-212 Area code". The leading number "1-" is understood as being the NANP calling region. CaribDigita 10:30, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Hi there, I too thought about the current Area code naming situation under the NANP. This comes up often in the Caribbean since very many of the Caribbean Islands are under the NANP plan and also another large number are under what many people locally coin as the "European" calling system.  Cuba, Haiti, Belize, Guyana, Suriname, the entire French West Indies and Netherlands Antilles use the "European" style while all the other islands were (1-809) and now follow NANP under their new area codes.  I'm thinking instead of having all articles follow "NANP_Area_code" which is somewhat un-guessable if you happened to come to Wikipedia the first time, I propose perhaps having the current "XXX_Area_code" instead be changed to "1-XXX_Area_code".
 * yeah seems reasonable, ideally you would identify it as +1-212 but you can't do that on mediawiki. Plugwash 00:07, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Let's go with it. ("it" = 1-XXX Area code)  Any thoughts on whether or not we should also make redirects for all of the articles from XXX Area code?  While we're discussing this, should it be XXX Area code or XXX area code?  Tom e rtalk  03:19, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
 * I'm now of the belief that we should keep the old titles as redirects (i.e. do these title changes as moves). If there is ever ambiguity, the redirects can be turned into dabs. - Keith D. Tyler &para; 23:40, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
 * I think Tom brings up a good point, while we are at it, should we or should we not convert "Area code" into "area code"? I'm on the fence about it. I mean I would think it would be capitalised gramatically.  However I'm not entirely sure if I personally would have searched wikipedia as "Area code" especially since Wikipedia is infact case sensative when you click "Go". CaribDigita 00:47, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
 * OK...my proposed solution is this: Let's name the articles all 1-XXX area code, and make redirects to those articles from both XXX area code and XXX Area code at least, and possibly also from 1-XXX Area code.  Redirects are cheap, as is so often said, not only because they take up very little space in the db, but also because, as long as people format their article wikilinks properly, they cause negligible server load....  This is gonna create as many as hmmmm... 8x10x10x3 hmmmm...2,400 redirects, but I don't foresee, as long as people are careful to form article wikilinks properly, perhaps as few as 0, perhaps as many 3, searches that will actually require accessing those redirects daily.   Ever the optimist, Tom e rtalk  10:56, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
 * OK, so who wants to start and should we coordinate the effort? Or would making a bot be the best solution? - Keith D. Tyler &para; 20:09, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Oh, a bot, please. :-) Tom e rtalk  22:40, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
 * if you use a bot be sure to check the pages really do relate to the US area code before moving them. Plugwash 22:42, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Uncle G's major work 'bot can do this work. This is a small mountain.  &#9786;  Please describe, on Category talk:North American area codes, which articles should be excluded, and what exact renaming scheme you wish to use.  (Presumably you wish to be akin to the article titles used in Category:Greek Area Codes and Category:United Kingdom area codes.)  Please recategorize any relevant articles in Category:Area codes beforehand, too. Uncle G 16:42, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Dear goodness, I had no idea there were so many divergent standards. Seeing these makes me realize the Very Real Need for a Telecom Wikiproject. As for exclusions, I don't know of any "Area code XXX" arts that aren't NANP, so I know of no exclusions. - Keith D. Tyler &para; 18:54, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I seem to have gotten the pattern mixed up. We're looking to move "XXX area code" to "1-XXX area code". I had it backwards - Keith D. Tyler &para; 18:55, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Confirmation

 * See Deletion_policy/Area_codes.

Just to confirm under consensus -- we want to perform the following mass move: Right? - Keith D. Tyler &para; 20:40, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
 * All articles currently named "XXX area code" where XXX is a three digit number should be moved to "1-XXX area code".
 * Possibly not. Witness:  Area code 212 212 Area code 212 area code 1-212 Area code 1-212 area code 1-212 Area code 212 (North American area code) North American area code 212 NANP area code 212 NANP Area code 212 Also see the straw poll. Uncle G 21:03, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Naming convention
Since the codes are in fact American, the name should reflect that (and the term "North America" definitely refers to the continent, not the country). I'd object to using "NANP" as most people don't know what that means. Hence, following naming conventions, I'd end up at
 * 284 (United States area code)
 * 519 (Canada area code)
 * 118 (United Kingdom STD code)
 * 2610 (Greece dialing code)

Or thereabouts. Radiant_ &gt;|&lt; 21:21, 19 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Just to butt in, I'd most readily accept a scheme where Area Code 410 were just what it said it was, with a disambiguation notice at the top that makes clear that it refers to a North American area code, and provides links, where appropriate, to other articles that need to be disambiguated. If there's are other real contenders for the name, then make it a plain disambiguation page, and put the article about the North American code at Area Code 410 (North America). I realize that this is a bit less standardized than the standardizers among us would like, but it does follow the more organic disambiguation process that occurs with many topics in lieu of creating a large number of articles with unlikely-to-be-linked titles. --Dystopos 21:59, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
 * You're using North America (referring to the continent) when you really mean the United States (referring to the country). Also, your capitalization is incorrect. Other than that, I would have no objection to 999 (Countryname area code). If you want to disambig from 999 (area code) that would be fine, as long as it's understood that 999] refers to the year, by convention. Radiant_ &gt;|&lt; 00:41, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I like Radiant's plan. Slightly less clunky than United States area code 310. jengod 01:26, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

This neglects the fact that United States area codes and North American area codes are the same thing. As are Canadian area codes, Jamaican area codes, Bermudan area codes, etc. They are allocated and controlled via the same authority and reside under the same country code. - Keith D. Tyler &para; 01:37, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
 * They're not the same thing, they happen to be organized so that they never overlap. That may sound nitpicky, but the point is that people will want to know which codes reside in which country, and that people from anywhere else in the world will likely assume that codes are dependent on country. Radiant_ &gt;|&lt; 01:55, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
 * btw wikipedia supports + in article titles now so we can just put the codes at thier full international forms e.g. +1 500 area code Plugwash 02:13, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I disagree with that characterization. It makes it sound like there is an agreement between two or more different numbering authorities not to overlap codes. In fact there is only one numbering authority. The reason they don't overlap is because they are treated as a single numbering plan, administered by a single entity, NANPA. In addition to the allocation of area codes, the NANP also defines number length and special service codes that apply plan-wide. - Keith D. Tyler &para; 18:01, 20 January 2006 (*UTC)
 * I agree with Keith; there are not separate United States, Canada, Jamaica, etc. area code systems (whereas for example the UK dialing codes are entirely independent of the Greek ones), but a single trans-national North American (or World Zone 1, if you prefer) system. My two cents is that "Area code 401 (North America)" is a reasonable approach to article naming, although I also happen to think there is usually very little reason for a separate article about each area code since a list would serve most reader's needs quite well.  --Russ Blau (talk) 15:38, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Just about everything else on Wikipedia is categorized per country. Just because in this case several countries cooperate under a "single entity" does not mean that their codes should not be categorized by country. Most people think in terms of geographic borders, not of "single entities", and thus would expect a category per country. Radiant_ &gt;|&lt; 12:04, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
 * The argument that "just about everything else on Wikipedia is categorized per country" doesn't make a lot of sense to me. There's no Caribbean Sea (Jamaica) vs. Caribbean Sea (Cuba), so why should area codes be arbitrarily labeled per country when they are no longer administered per country? --15:38, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Moving Area code 613 to Area code 1-613 and Area code 202 to Area code 1-202 (for example) would resolve the issue by categorising by country code. Just so long as everything follows a standard of including the country code, so that Area code 61-3 (if created) will be Victoria, Australia and not eastern Ontario, the scheme should work with or without the leading '+' in the title. --carlb 04:10, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

I see that a consensus has not yet formed on what the article names should be. I will not give the task to the 'bot until there is evidence of an agreement. Please come to some agreement. Uncle G 15:25, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

value of phone numbers

 * Because of the scarcity of telephone numbers, the market value of each is consequently higher

i'd like a source backing this up. i'd have thought that phone numbers were something that was government allocated with more made availible as demanded (through overlay and split plans in the US through variable area code length in the uk) and not something controlled through free market forces. Though it is interesting to note that the NANP and the UK have the same national number length despite the fact that the US alone has a much larger population than the uk! Plugwash 22:01, 25 December 2005 (UTC)


 * NPAs are being used up. Yes, new ones can be made, but not without elongating the national number length, which is undesirable but generally seen as an unavoidable conclusion. (That is, if you believe that PSTN is the future of telephony for all eternity. Me, I'm looking forward to widespread acceptance of VoIP.) Anyway, the scarcity of Internet address blocks, which suffer from a somewhat similar distribution scheme to number blocks, is similarly putting pressure on a migration from IPv4 to IPv6.


 * Anyway, I agree with the quote, but don't have any sources for you at the moment. As I understand it, before number pooling, the resale value of number blocks was high due to scarcity, making it expensive to roll out CLEC voice service as you had to acquire a dedicated exchange block of numbers. This is the same phenomenon (and solution) that accelerated NPA expansion in the 90s and would have exhausted the pool of available NPAs by now.


 * Keep in mind that the US has a glut of phone carriers, mostly at the local level. A quick scan of Telcordia records shows over 8,000 OCs. I imagine (though I claim naivete) when all your phones are served by BT, or maybe a handful of recently deregulated local telcos, you have a lot less of this sort of problem. - Keith D. Tyler &para; 22:07, 3 January 2006 (UTC)


 * As for the number length of UKNP vs NANP, it looks like UK telephone numbering plan has a lot of unused number space, as a result of its design. - Keith D. Tyler &para; 19:22, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

How is the allocation of new (rather than re-sold) blocks within an area code handled in the US? is it handled by local government? federal government? an incumbent carrier? or what? Plugwash 02:14, 4 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Excellent question. It appears from that this is NANPA's job, within the U.S. At least... that is true at the exchange (10,000-block) level. According to the documents  at ATIS, there is a separate "Pooling Administrator" who hands out NXX-X (1,000) blocks. As it turns out, this appears to be NeuStar... i.e. NANPA.


 * The NANPA page on Jeopardy Procedures is also of particular interest on the topic of NANP numbering scarcity. Often these procedures involve "code rationing" of a fixed number of NXXs per month per OCN or area, as well as other limitations. It seems these sorts of recourses are limited to areas which have not implemented number pooling, which (along with an economic recession) has alleviated jeopardy conditions for many areas (e.g. Area code 564). - Keith D. Tyler &para; 19:22, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

I don't get this sentence
Something seems to be missing from this sentence (from #Cellular services and the NANP numbering scheme):


 * However, the convenience of the mobility inures to the subscriber, which many users regard as a fairer pricing system.

I think the object of the verb "inure" is missing. I'd add it myself, but I don't know what subscribers become inured to.  howch e  ng   {chat} 18:06, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

See in the intransitive verb form. The subject of the verb is the convenience of mobility. The object is the subscriber. The convenience inures to the subscriber, i.e. the customer benefits from and therefore pays for that convenience. - Keith D. Tyler &para; 18:27, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
 * OIC. I didn't know there was an intransitive form for that verb, and I was pretty good at English too (probably the only Asian male in my high school who scored higher on his verbal than his math on the SAT). I think a rewrite just for clarity's sake might be in order.
 * However, in the wireless-subscriber-pays model subscribers become inured to the convenience of the mobility and as a result, it usually regarded as a fairer pricing system.
 * How's that?  howch e  ng   {chat} 18:33, 27 January 2006 (UTC)


 * No, I don't think so; changing to the transitive form changes the meaning. Saying "they inure to the convenience" means they've gotten used to the trouble of the convenience. But saying "the convenience inures to the subscribers" means more like the convenience becomes the benefit and burden of the subscribers. Maybe there's a better word, but this is I think a generally accepted use of inure. - Keith D. Tyler &para; 22:22, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

What about what you just wrote above? It's far more clear IMHO.
 * However, in the wireless-subscriber-pays model, the subscriber benefits from and pays for the convenience of mobility. As a result, it is usually regarded as a fairer pricing system.

 howch e  ng   {chat} 23:47, 27 January 2006 (UTC) I'm not entirely sure what the person is saying either.

What I *suspect* they are trying to contrast are the differences between the pricing structures possibly used in the UK for example (or possibly other parts of Europe) Vs. those in the United States & Canada. In Europe they break a lot of their telephone numbers up into what the numbers themselves are to be used for. For Example: Internet Service Providers (with dial-up numbers) are given a certain block of phone numbers which they all use. The phone companies also charge a certain amount of money for dialing to those block of phone numbers (Firstly, the UK uses 'metered' rates and secondly, they know if you're dialing to that block of numbers that you're trying to go online.) Likewise I think the UK has a block of #'s reserved for mobile phones too. I don't know exactly the situation--- with those but I suspect the person initiating a call for example from a wireline phone number would incurr the fee for dialing to a wireless number. (????) This is what I suspect they're trying to comment about- in the article. In the Caribbean many of the islands have Cable and Wireless(of UK) and that company is forever trying to impose the European type of phone models in the Caribbean islands- such as metered rates for Internet and so on or metered rates for making calls within the same country and so on.

The Caribbean isles are mostly locked into the North American type of system, which means it puts them at a disavantage to implement a UK-based phone model in either a NAFTA or FTAA type of socioeconomic model because the rates make the Caribbean's less competitive. In the US for example 555-1111 could be wireline # and 555-1112 could be wireless # and 555-1113 # could be either, so the US phone providers can't implement special fees for certain blocks of numbers.

The trade offs are this, in the UK if a person calling your cell incurrs the fee, then Mobile phone plans there will cost the consumer less. However, (for the USA) that would mean the US would have to move mobile phone #s to a special block of numbers for this to work. The trade off of having a uniform system like that of the United States is wireline companies may tend to charge Mobile phone companies more for various fees they must pay through inter-connection rates. Basically in the USA as a wireless owner you pay wheather you made the call or not to your cell phone. In the UK the Wireline customers may pay their share if they called your wireless phone. In turn that means less fees the mobile phone providers would have to charge their customer.CaribDigita 17:42, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

First metro area with mandatory 10-digit dialing?
"Atlanta, Georgia, was the first city in the United States to have mandatory 10-digit dialing throughout its metro area, roughly coinciding with the Olympic Games in Atlanta."

Is this correct? I ask because in the early 1990s, I was living in Washington, DC, and we went to mandatory 10-digit dialing in 1990 or 1991. I don't know that that applied throughout the metro area, although at the time I got the distinct impression that it did. Can anyone source or disprove the statement in the article? --Tkynerd 19:48, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Following up to myself to correct and clarify myself. :-) This page shows that 202 still does not require 10-digit dialing. The event I'm remembering is when, in order to free up a number of NXXs, they disallowed the previously permitted practice of 7-digit dialing all over the metro area, even into other area codes. When I moved to DC in late 1989, it was still possible for me (in area code 202) to dial, e.g., a number in Northern Virginia (area code 703) using only seven digits. Within the next couple of years, they started requiring us to dial the area code when dialing outside our own area code. Seven-digit dialing was still permitted within your own area code. Or to put it more briefly: Never mind. --Tkynerd 00:51, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Mandatory 10-D in Atlanta did not actually take place until 1998 when the area code 678 overlay took effect (NANPA Planning Letter #102), well after the 404/770 split in 1995 (see page 2 of BellCore Informational Letter #93-04-016 for dialing pattern info during that era). While 10-D dialing was permissible after the 706 split, it was not approved to be mandatory until the overlay was approved in 1998. Ccmhg 15:46, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

The "Dialing plans" section includes the comment: "Most areas permit local calls to be dialed as 1+10D except for Texas and some jurisdictions in Canada which require that callers know which numbers are local and which are toll, dialing 10D for all local calls and 1+10D for all toll calls." I think Atlanta also prohibits 1+10D dialing for local calls - I know it doesn't work on my mother's phone, although that may be because she doesn't have long distance service. Does anyone know whether this is true for the rest of Atlanta?

Philadelphia required 10-digit dialing in 1994 when the 610 area code was split from the 215 area code. Bill S. (talk) 15:45, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

Area Codes ending in "0," and Areas Codes without "0" or "1" in the center position
Area codes with a "0" in the third position were not in general use until the early 1990s - and they were put into use only after almost all the other conventional options were taken. Query - what was the first area code to end in a zero, and when was it assigned.

Second, as noted in the article, the first area code with a center digit other than "0" or "1" also appeared in the 1990s. Query - what was the last area code assigned under the original convention - that is, with a "0" or "1" in the middle position, and without a "0" in the third position? NorCalHistory 04:40, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
 * This page shows that 510-910 were assigned in 1962, but not to geographic areas; instead they were used for something called "US/Canadian Regional TWX/WADS Service" (and if anyone knows what that is, please tell me; I'm curious now). 510, 710, 810 and 910 were reclaimed in 1982 and not assigned. During the early 1990s, 210, 310, 410 and 510 were assigned geographically, and 610 was reclaimed and assigned. At that last link, you can also see that 905 (southeastern Ontario) appears to have been the last "original" area code to be assigned. --Tkynerd 01:04, 16 September 2006 (UTC)


 * "Teletype Wide-area eXchange" / "wide area data service" a.k.a. Telex II
 * Found via-
 * a random 'post' about TWX specifics.
 * -- (see 610)
 * -- See the bottom of pg.
 * -- CaribDigita 03:08, 16 September 2006 (UTC)


 * OK, based on the above site, it looks like 510 (SF Bay Area) was the first in general use to end in zero (with permissive use beginning 09/02/1991), followed by:
 * 410 (Baltimore area-11/1/1991),
 * 310 (West LA area-11/2/1991),
 * 210 (San Antonio area-11/1/92),
 * 910 (Central NC-11/14/93),
 * 810 (Eastern MI-12/01/93, and finally
 * 610 (Southeastern PA-01/08/94)
 * It looks like 710 has been reserved for the federal government, but it appears that (as of 2004), only one number has been assigned to the 710 area code.


 * Thanks for these interesting bits of information! NorCalHistory 03:23, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Article name changes
I see no consensus was reached above on article names. The current names are clearly a problem, exhibiting as they do a North American bias. I thought perhaps a quick poll would be beneficial in gaining consensus.

To summarise the arguments briefly:


 * There are two main options for naming strategy, either putting the description in front of the number (E.g. "[Region] area code [number]") or behind the number in brackets (E.g. "[number] ([Region] area code)"). The former is the current practice, the latter seems to fit better with other prevalent naming strategies on wikipedia.  It also allows us to enter (e.g.) 351 (some area code) to get the link 351, which is convenient.
 * There are four ways of identifying the region:
 * Nationally, e.g. United States, Canada, Dominican Republic, etc. This may be somewhat confusing to people as the numbers are not really allocated on a national basis, and it makes it harder to make a link to a code as you'll have to consider what the country is, but it fits better with some existing naming conventions.
 * By the technical name of the system, either "North American Numbering Plan" or "NANP"; the former is probably too long, the latter is an acronym that most people don't know the meaning of.
 * By geographic region, i.e. "North American"
 * By international dialling prefix, so names would be either "Area code 1-xxx" or "1-xxx (area code)".
 * The 1 might have a "+" prefixed to it to indicate it is an international prefix.

This results in a startling 12 different options if we went for a straight poll, so I prefer a number of independent polls, which I've laid out below. JulesH 08:31, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Description before or after
Before (e.g. "[Region] area code [number]")

After (e.g. "[number] ([Region] area code)")
 * Support Conforms better to general wikipedia standards JulesH 08:31, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

""Verboten"" under the headline "Numbering system" is the german word for forbidden and should be changed — Preceding unsigned comment added by 161.52.14.38 (talk) 08:38, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Country, region or dialling prefix
As there are more than two options here, it may be useful to note any you strongly oppose as well as the one you prefer.

Country (e.g. "United States area code [number]")
 * Strongly oppose Would be confusing, I think. JulesH 08:31, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Region (e.g. "North American area code [number]" or "NANP area code [number]"; see also next poll)
 * Support Best reflects the way people would think about the codes. JulesH 08:31, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Prefix (e.g. "Area code 1-[number]" or "Area code +1-[number]"; see additional poll below)

Region name
If a regional name is chosen, which of the options is best? Feel free to comment here even if you didn't support regional names above.

North American
 * Support Clearest way of describing them. JulesH 08:31, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

North American Numbering Plan

NANP

International prefix
If an internation prefix is chosen, should we use "1" or "+1"?

1-xxx

+1-xxx
 * Support More obviously international.

Comments

 * I myself have always perceived "area code" as a specifically North American term anyway. Outside the NANPA region, the equivalent codes are normally referred to in English as "city codes" rather than "area codes." So I don't really see this supposed North American bias as a problem. --Tkynerd 13:31, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, the phrase "area code" is certainly used in the UK. I'm not sure about other countries, but I suspect it's unlikely that only two use the term. JulesH 14:41, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
 * OK then, I've been educated. Thanks. :-) --Tkynerd 17:36, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

5 Digit Dialing
I'd be interested to see a historical explanation of how 5-digit dialing worked in the United States. It was generally a single-digit local prefix followed by a four digit number, only usable in certain less populated areas. I don't have the details myself (other than this explanation), or I would have put the info in the page.
 * What more information are you looking for -- technical information about how this was implemented in the switches? I don't know that for sure, but I would assume that the switches in these areas only handled a single number prefix, and were programmed to recognize any dialed number that didn't start with a 1 or with the first two digits of that prefix as a five-digit number and route the call accordingly. (That would, of course, mean that you couldn't have a 7-digit number with the form ABA-BCDE, because the switch wouldn't be able to recognize, when you dialed AB, whether you were dialing 5 digits or 7.) I grew up myself in a rural part of Mississippi where we had 4-digit dialing; IINM, that area retained 4-digit dialing into the 1980s. --Tkynerd 13:03, 30 November 2006 (UTC)


 * (809) also had 5 digit phone numbers as well. See Area codes in the Caribbean.  I think it must have been a nightmare.  Certain islands had certain central office numbers and there would be no less than 3-4 companies that would have been operating in the 809 Number space. CaribDigita 14:53, 30 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Actually, externally, every country/island in 809 had seven digit numbers, but for many, the first two or three (or in the case of Anguilla, four) digits were not required for intra-country dialing, and were referred to as the "national number". Puerto Rico, Dominican Republic, Jamaica and the Bahamas were 7D locations, although Bahamas was all 3XX and Jamaica was all 9XX, while Puerto Rico was all 7XX and 8XX. Dominican Republic was mostly 5XX but with one group of 6XXes.


 * The Cayman Islands' national number was 94, with five-digit local dialing. For example, externally, one might call 948-0123, but within the islands, it would have been 80123, with a national number of 94. Ultimately, the spread of digital exchanges, and the break-up of 809 into individual national area codes under NANP, would have compelled seven-digit dialing. Due to overlays, Puerto Rico and the Dominican Republic now compel ten-digit dialing. GBC 18:56, 30 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Many smaller towns and medium-sized American cities back in the 1950's had only 4- or 5-digit local numbers. These were gradually "made up" to 7 digits to fit in with the DDD (Direct Distance Dialing) plan so that these places could be dialed direct from elsewhere in the country.  The most usual scenario which permitted 4- or 5-digit local dialing to continue for many years after was of a step-by-step central office.  In the most basic terms, these worked by each selector switch accepting a single dialed digit, then selecting a free path to the next selector which accepted the next dialed digit and so on.  To add two or three extra stages of switches which would only ever have one specific digit on it in use for local calls would have been extremely uneconomical, so the common practice was to make the first selectors digit absorbing types.


 * Digit absorption meant that when a specific digit was dialed into the selector, instead of connecting through to another selector the switch would simply release back to its resting position, so that the next dialed digit stepped the same selector again.  Careful arrangement of the numbering schemes had to be employed, but it provided the most economical way of achieving the desired aim.  To take an example, a town might have had 5-digit numbers in the 2-xxxx, 3-xxxx and 4-xxxx ranges.  When 7-digit numbering came along, three prefixes within the area code would be allocated to the town, say 752, 753 and 754.   The first selectors could then be wired to absorb the digits 5 and 7.  Thus dialing locally within town it became possible to dial either the new 7-digit number in full, or just the original 5-digit number.  - PBC1966 (talk) 21:43, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Modem usage
I added the comment about modem usage affecting the consumption of phone numbers, and suggest that, until the development of cell phones, was the dominate reason for the increased rate of phone number consumption.

Public network operators, such as CompuServe and later, UUNET, consumed hundreds of numbers in local central offices for their modem banks. But more importantly, many consumers chose to install second lines in their homes so that their primary voice line would not be tied up for hours with modem usage. For a time, the local exchange carriers encouraged this, even though it was a very inefficient use of telephone facilities. The current scheme of running both voice and data over a shared DSL connection, and splitting data from voice in the central office is much more efficient as it removes the data-carrying voice connections from the inter-office trunk facilities and places it on the packet network. This was actually the bigger problem for the local exchange carriers, as the size of the inter-office trunks was predicated on long-standing statistical norms (see Erlang tables) for call durations. For many years, the norm for voice calls was around 5 minutes, but modem calls tended to be many times longer.

Without question, the non-blocking TDM phone network is seeing its last days, as the network completely inverts with voice traffic moved to the packet network. Boomer 15:26, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Cell phone emergency numbers?
User:CaribDigita just added several numbers which are programmed into cell phones for emergency purposes. I don't think they should be in this article, as they are not part of the NANP, but I don't want to revert without discussing the matter here first. What do others think? --Tkynerd 02:38, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I think that the numbers can be added into the article provided that the information is sourced. -- Joshua  C  hi  e  w  09:19, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
 * That would be I. That's ok if you don't feel like it belongs here.  I can remove it.

The reason I put it. I just stummbled across those numbers in my mobile phone. I dialed "08" trying to find hidden network codes these phones have and ended up dialing emergency. (opps!) I replied to them that I didn't dial either "112" nor "911" so I don't know how I dialed them... I went to check my manual which reads.

'''"Making Emergency calls
 * Enter your emergency number and press Call. Your phone supports the international emergency numbers, 112, 911 and 08.  This means that these numbers can normally be used to make an emergency call in *any* country, with or without a SIM card inserted, if a GSM network is within range.

In some ocountries other emergency numbers may also be promoted. Your operator may therefore have saved additional local emergency numbers on the SIM card."'''

I think- I do agree with you what about the idea of moving it from here. I see there is an article on Emergency telephone numbers already...

P.S. for the record my phone was through "AT&T Wireless/Cingular/SBC/at&t"(or whatever else they call themselves these days. CaribDigita 17:48, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Hi CaribDigita, and thanks for posting. And thanks for realizing that I'm not saying this material doesn't belong on Wikipedia, just that it doesn't belong in this particular article. Emergency telephone number sounds like a good choice, although I haven't looked at that article. I'll let you move the text, since you added it, so you can merge it into the other article the way you want. Thanks. --Tkynerd 18:40, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Sources?
Am I the only one noticing that there doesn't seem to be any citations or sources noted in the article? This is an excellent description of the system...without citations... Nulbyte 05:58, 20 May 2007 (UTC)


 * This is a common problem with many articles. But even when citations or sources are provided, they very often unfortunately are not of exceptional quality. Winston.PL 10:56, 15 September 2007 (UTC)


 * It's really common with old articles. I started this one in April 2003 (boy - that long ago), long before sourcing existed in wikipedia. Scads of people have added to it since - most of them before sourcing was common, so there's s a lot of good stuff that lacks sources. I have noticed that it is harder to go back and source existing material, than to source it as it is added. - DavidWBrooks 12:26, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Despite its importance as a share of the worldwide telephone system
The sentence "Despite its importance as a share of the worldwide telephone system" in special numbers and codes doesn't make much sense to me. Why would the NANP be so particularily important as opposed to other contries' numbering schemes? Just because it is used by some larger countries (the US and Canada) or is there some point I'm missing here? Because when the NANP was conceived, telefone use was already wide spread all over the world. And as a scheme with a set number of digits (due to technical limitations I suppose), it is rather unflexible as opposed to a scheme with a variable number of digits in the area codes and local numbers, as used in Germany for example. So I don't see any superiority of the NANP which would make it particularily important. 84.148.95.31 01:26, 25 May 2007 (UTC)


 * For many years, the North American phone network was the most advanced telephone system in the world, carrying a very large share of the world's telephone traffic, and pioneering technologies such as Touch-Tone, fiber-optic transmission, and Caller ID. Furthermore, the NANP dialing rules and special codes are pretty much constant throughout the system, and have been for a long time, whereas in Europe (for example) each country had its own number allocation system and special codes; only in the last few years have some of these things been coordinated (such as the adoption of 00 as the international prefix). I suppose it is indeed surprising that many of the things that were used across the NANP, such as emergency codes and dialing prefixes, were not accepted as de facto standards by other telephone systems.


 * As to Germany's "flexible" system, until the era of telephone number shortages and separate mobile prefixes, the North American standard system of three-digit area codes and seven-digit numbers with free local calls certainly seemed a more orderly way of doing things than the haphazard, nonstandardized length of prefixes and numbers in systems such as West Germany's former state-run telephone network; only in recent years has the ability to add extra digits without reconfiguring the entire system emerged as an advantage! Pro hib it O ni o ns  (T) 00:26, 9 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, it alludes to a bygone time, when NANP had about half the world's telephones, as well as being in some important technical senses more advanced than the other half, and certainly more unified. Ages ago.  Jim.henderson 23:56, 12 June 2007 (UTC)


 * What is haphazard about the German system? You have an area code and a subscriber number. Outside of the area you dial the area code, inside you omit it. No 10-digit-dialing, no 1- prefix for long distance calls. I have to admit, this is because we in Germany had the "advantage" of one provider instead of 8000+. But it doesn't really matter whether you have a 6-digit or 8-digit phone number and a 2-digit or 5-digit area code. You just remember the number "as is". BTW, are there any plans to change the system completely, omitting the strict 3-3-4 format? YetiCGN 19:16, 23 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Mmmm. NANP doesn't have much in common. It depends totally on the country.  For example toll free numbers only really pertain to either Canada and the United States.  And even then a toll free number can be segrigated.  Example.  goto http://www.rogers.com/ (The largest cable company in Canada. If you're in the USA try finding a 1-800 number and dialing it.  It will say you can't call it from your area.  As far as calling a 1-800 number in Bermuda or the Caribbean you'll be charged as a toll call. The emergency numbers in the Caribbean are all different because the Governments have different policies in place.  Esp. after the operations of GTE (Then called Continental Telephone - CONTEL) were totally or partcially nationalised in Jamaica, Barbados or Trinidad and Tobago.  Barbados also had 5 digit dialing as recently as 1983. As seen on the 1983 vinyl record by the Calypsonian named "Viper" where several phone numbers are printed on the back of the record jacket.


 * Gem Travel, Bridgetown, Barbados; Rickett St., P.O. Box 60 Tel:70332
 * TP-Tyers, Tel:92319
 * Souvenir Music Co., Government Hill, St. Michael, Barbados. Tel: 92319


 * Some islands in the Caribbean also still have metered phones like in the UK (thanks to Cable and Wireless.) Barbados has flat rate, yet next door in many of the nearby islands if you pickup the phone receiver to clean it (say in Trinidad) you're already getting charged.  I don't see much similar other than they begin with 1-NXX area codes now... Although the FCC does strike down out-landish fees in the Caribbean, like those so called rumours about people getting scammed to call the Caribbean.  They don't allow any $2,500/min. charges. And another example of FCC regulation spilling into the Caribbean, involves Cuba and the cost to US phone companies of terminating calls in that country given the embargo. Most islands have public utility regulators.
 * Bahamas, (The) -- Public Utilities Commission of the Bahamas
 * Barbados -- Fair Trading Commission (FTC)
 * Eastern Caribbean bloc (OECS) -- [National Telecommunications Regulatory Commissions (NTRCs) http://www.ectel.int/]
 * Jamaica -- Office of Utility Regulation
 * Regional -- Organisation of Caribbean Utility Regulators
 * Trinidad and Tobago -- Regulated Industries Commission CaribDigita 01:50, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Meanwhile, they begin with 1-(3 digit area code), all by itself, is way more standardization than most other areas of the world have managed. That's the point. The fact that fewer than seven digits can be dialed for a local call doesn't mean the phone number is less than seven digits long. (The area of rural Mississippi that I'm originally from had four-digit dialing until sometime in the 1980s, but we always knew we "really" had a seven-digit phone number.) Otherwise, Jim.henderson put it well above. --Tkynerd 12:17, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

"1" prefix for long distance
User Inetpup has removed text from the end of the "History" section of the article that indicated that the "1" prefix was used for long distance before "new-format" area codes began to be assigned in the 1990s. Inetpup provided a reference that supposedly proves that the "1" prefix did not come into use until the 1990s. I think Inetpup is confusing the use of the "1" prefix for local calls, which indeed did not begin until the 1990s AFAIK, with its use for long-distance calls, which began much earlier. See, for example, the section "1960 - Direct Distance Dialing" here. I have undone Inetpup's edit. --Tkynerd 12:45, 5 July 2007 (UTC)


 * The link above no longer works, but the claim that use of the "1" prefix did not come into use AT ALL until the 1990's is indeed completely false, as it was in use in some areas many years before that (along with other access codes in some places, such as 112). 146.90.184.250 (talk) 14:24, 11 June 2013 (UTC)


 * It was certainly required in area 213 by 1984. It's needed (at least) wherever there exist exchanges that could be confused with area codes. —Tamfang (talk) 21:56, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

"1" was used for intra-code toll calls at least as far back as the 1970s. It was also used in conjunction with inter-code calls that far back. In the 1970s, you had to dial 1+ the 7-digit number to make a toll call within your own area code, at least within 215. Bill S. (talk) 23:18, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

"1" was used for intra-code toll calls at least as far back as the 1970s. It was also used in conjunction with inter-code calls that far back. In the 1970s, you had to dial 1+ the 7-digit number to make a toll call within your own area code, at least within 215. Bill S. (talk) 23:19, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

Original Area Codes
Could we put a list in this article of the original 86 area codes and what areas they covered at the time? -- Tckma 20:29, 14 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Boy, I hope not - 86 items in a list is *not* what wikipedia is all about. - DavidWBrooks 21:11, 14 September 2007 (UTC)


 * well there is a map of the original 86 under links - and there are lots of lists on Wilkpedia! It shows how far the system has come since the original 86 (speaking as a non-American!) Hugo999 (talk) 05:28, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

This article would be a bad place to put it but there is already a valuable List of NANP area codes article, and a separate list article for the original ones would also be pleasant. Jim.henderson (talk) 07:56, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Definition needed
The abbrevation "NPA" is not actually defined anywhere. I assume it's the area code, but I'm not certain. --NellieBly (talk) 09:07, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

NPA = Numbering Plan Area. As you say, the area code. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.132.50.97 (talk) 09:56, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Renaming
User:AzaToth brought to CFD a proposal that US area codes should all be renamed in the format "United States area code XXX". Since CFD is not the place for batch renaming of individual articles within a category, the user was advised to bring their proposal here instead. Accordingly, as the administrator who closed it for being the wrong venue for such a discussion, I'm bringing the proposal to your attention on AzaToth's behalf. Otherwise, however, I have no opinion on the proposed move, so discuss amongst yerselves. Bearcat (talk) 18:18, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Poor idea since many NANP codes are not in the United States, for example Area code 613 Jim.henderson (talk) 12:52, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I see a couple of possibilities, international format ( e.g. "+1 633 area code") or NANP Area code 613 Plugwash (talk) 13:30, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
 * "Area code 510 (NANP)"? —Tamfang (talk) 05:15, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Synecdoche?
The opening paragraph describes the use of "NANP" to refer to the geographical area as synecdoche. However, as I understand it this would be metonymy-- synecdoche would be something like referring to numbering plans in general as NANP. 87.82.18.94 (talk) 14:47, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, I believe you are correct. Anomie⚔ 15:11, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Pay Phones
As I recall from days at the AT&T test bureau, pay phones always had an 8 or 9 in the 4th position, i.e., xxx-8xxx or xxx-9xxx. I have no idea what has happened to that standard, particularly with the virtual disappearance of street pay phones. HeartAss (talk) 00:21, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

It was common in many areas for coinphones to be assigned numbers in the 8xxx or 9xxx range, but it was by no means universal. The traffic routing guides (used by operators to route calls) used to list which number ranges in a particular area might contain coinphones, e.g. to check for collect calls. PBC1966 (talk) 18:22, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

place names
Why go to the trouble of changing "Englewood, New Jersey" to "Englewood, New Jersey"? —Tamfang (talk) 22:15, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I was just wondering the same thing. You'll probably have to ask at User talk:Rich Farmbrough to get an answer though. Anomie⚔ 02:32, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

What happened to the dashes?
For example, the "current system" section as of now (17:36, March 4, 2011 (UTC)) has:
 * (234) 235 5678 is valid
 * (123) 234 5678 is invalid, because NPA cannot begin with a "1"

But I would have expected the former number to have been formatted as either (234) 235-5678 (if 10-digit dialing is not yet required in that region) or 234-235-5678 (if it is). Strangely, there are dashes in the general format given a bit earlier in the section, even though international numbers are conventionally space-separated:
 * +1-NPA-NXX-xxxx

--SamB (talk) 17:36, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

References need for alphabetic section
The paragraph that begins "In addition to commercial uses, alphabetic dialing has occasionally influenced the choice of regional area codes in the United States." desperately needs some sort of citation(s) for what looks suspiciously like after-the-fact theorizing. It says that certain extensions were chosen because of the three-letter-word they spelled, some of which are pretty silly (SUN? VOL?). Without references, that whole paragraph is likely to be removed.

Looking back through the history, it has been in the article for several years, slowly expanded, often by anonymous IPs. Reeks of urban legend. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 16:56, 5 March 2011 (UTC)


 * I don't know about the others, but 865/VOL is not an urban legend. I'll add a source from the Area code 865 article. - BilCat (talk) 17:40, 5 March 2011 (UTC)


 * It's a pretty weird coincidence that so many Caribbean codes (adopted within a relatively short period, 1995–99) can be read as abbreviations for the places: PUR or PTR for Puerto Rico, ANT for Antigua, SLU for Santa Lucia, BHA for the Bahamas, ANG for Anguilla, TNT for Trinidad 'n' Tobago, BVI for the British Virgin Islands, ROS for Roseau, GRE for Grenada, SVG for St Vincent & Grenadines. —Tamfang (talk) 04:33, 6 March 2011 (UTC)


 * I've removed the entires that remain uncited. Besides, this article is an overview of the entire integrated telephone numbering plan, and is not specifically about area codes. - BilCat (talk) 07:37, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

the section on special numbers -- are those part of NANP?
star69 is a feature, between a subscriber and their local service, as well as the others. In fact these codes can be configred on Sipura ATA devices. The X11 numbers, too, are certainly very fascinating but I wonder if this page is the right place for such things. Does a page on "telephone service features" exist yet? No I'm not going to look right now 68.70.67.226 (talk) 13:10, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Consensus needed
Regarding this edit: IMO, there is no need to include this information in the lead rather than in the body of the article, no need to include the fact that NeuStar was spun off from Lockheed Martin over a decade ago, and no need for the reference from 1999 that contributes exactly nothing to the article. But rather than edit war over it, I'm bringing it here for discussion. Anomie⚔ 22:38, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm open to locating the information in a location other than the lead, but dont see an issue with including information on the contractor administering the program. Also dont see an issue with including a some history on that administration.  Especially when it can be included with brevity as it has.--RadioFan (talk) 00:56, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

double digit codes

 * Area codes where the last two digits match are reserved for non-geographic numbers such as +1-800 or +1-888; if there is little or nothing in area code 500, there is no immediate probability of new non-geographic prefixes in the same range (such as +1-555) being created.

I am not at all sure that I understand the part after the semicolon. —Tamfang (talk) 08:00, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

various
Feldercarb (talk) 23:33, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
 * "Another oddity of NANP" -- this is a perjorative. Couldn't we say "a unique feature" or "a feature". What was the first oddity? If it is an ISO standard, it isn't odd.
 * The term NANPA is used quite a bit, (there is a redirect to this article) but not introduced until fairly late in the article.
 * There are a number of parenthetical descriptions of NANPA, tracing the ownership/mangangement. Perhaps should have its own paragraph.
 * As others have noted, the formatting is a bit inconstent, for example sometimes no hyphens, sometimes with. I think the "traditional" NA format was (xxx) 123-4567, while the "international" is no and no -. Maybe explain/cite this.
 * In the "special numbers and codes" section -- the first set of numbers are not bold, but the second set (* numbers) are bold.
 * A bit weak on in-line citations.

Numbering system example incorrect
I was reading on http://www.nanpa.com/area_codes/index.html that all area codes with a 9 as the middle number are reserved for future expansion. That would make the example number of 291-234-5678 which is marked as valid, actually invalid. Not sure of myself, I picked a website that lists area codes by state http://www.allareacodes.com/area_code_listings_by_state.htm and went through all of the numbers. I wasn't able to find a area code with the middle number of 9.

I haven't ever made an edit to a wikipedia.org page before so this seemed like the right place to start.

I found on the wikipedia page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_North_American_Numbering_Plan_area_codes that all area codes with a middle number of 9 are marked as reserved.

(MikeGrace (talk) 21:36, 16 September 2013 (UTC))
 * That's right - There are no area codes with 9 as a middle digit being assigned to allow for possible expansion to 4-digit area codes in the future. The proposal is that a 9 would be inserted between the first and second digits of existing codes, so that, for example, 415 would become 4915 and 813 would become 8913.  That would allow a period of permissive dialing during which both old and new codes would work.  After the old codes were finally withdrawn from service, it would then be possible to assign codes such as 4215, 8513, etc.   PBC1966 (talk) 08:41, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Map request
NANP covers a very large territory, from the Caribbean to Micronesia. Could someone put in a world map denoting the countries covered by it? Thanks. 99.40.198.205 (talk) 20:16, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

Speed or Wear & Tear
The article explains the original numbering sequence convention of which digits are allowed in each position. Given that, then the article states that, initially, the large population areas received area codes with digits that generated the fewest number of clicks or pulses to make the dialing faster. I learned (but cannot remember where) that the main reason for fewer clicks in large population areas was to reduce wear of the mechanical relays and switches that were used before electronic switching. This also made dialing faster but was not the primary reason.

Since I do not have any references to support this, I will not edit the article but offer this for your consideration and/or discussion.

Lchutton (talk) 17:17, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

Administration and regulation
Who pays Neustar to administer the system? What authority does it have to enforce its decisions? To what degree is regulation delegated to the FCC by the other participating countries? -- Beland (talk) 22:35, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Toll Alerting?
What is "Toll Alerting"? This is mentioned in the article but it does not say what it is. I assume this is US-specific terminology, in which case it should be explained TiffaF (talk) 15:56, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Toll alerting means that for any toll call (i.e. any call not included within your local calling area and for which you will be charged) you must dial "1" first (and since the adoption of areas codes with a middle digit other than 0 or 1 from 1995 onwards, it also means that you must dial 1 plus the area code and number, even when it's your own area code).


 * Some states require toll alerting, others do not. California is NOT a toll-alerting state, for example, which means that calls to anywhere within your own area code can be dialed as just 7 digits, even if they are toll calls (overlay areas excepted).


 * You'll find heated views on both sides, with those in fervently in favor of toll alerting asserting that it's absolutely essential that people realize they're dialing a toll call by forcing them to dial 1 first, versus those who see no point in forcing people to dial 11 digits when 7 would do and that they should be aware of where they're calling and know if it's going to be a toll call. 87.114.244.235 (talk) 16:42, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

early exchange numbers

 * The subscriber number was written in a format of two letters and five digits (2L-5N), wherein the two letters were the first two of the telephone exchange name, mapped to a digit by a translation that was typically printed on the dial of each telephone.

was changed to


 * However, the seven-digit subscriber number was written in a format of two letters and five digits (2L-5N), wherein the two letters were translations of the first two digits of the office code, and choses in such a manner to be the first two letters of the telephone exchange name given to each office.

This new version raises the question, what was done when the exchange name did not happen to match any of the possible letter versions of the (numeric) office code? —Tamfang (talk) 22:35, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

And it's back:


 * The central-office code was chosen such that it could be represented by the first two letters of the central office name according to a digit-to-letter mapping that was printed on the face of the rotary dial, by grouping a set of letters with the digits 2 through 9.

This language conjures an absurd scenario: "That exchange's name is ‘Klondike’, so let's choose a code that can be represented by KL. Now, what pairs of digits qualify?"

Presumably the names were more often chosen to fit a unique pair of digits rather than the reverse. —Tamfang (talk) 22:08, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

NYC 917

 * The only example of a service specific overlay was area code 917 in New York City when it was first installed, but such service specific area code assignments were later prohibited by the Federal Communications Commission.

The phrase "when it was first installed" suggests that 917 (like its overlay partners) now includes landlines. Is that the case? If so, I'd add "...and 917 is no longer service-specific" or similar language. —Tamfang (talk) 02:02, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Administrator not Administration
The Report and Order at 11 FCC Rcd 8401 (1996) gives a quote from the NANC charter as selecting the "North American Numbering Plan Administrator", not the "Administration". (colloquially referred to as "the law") also names it as such ("NANP and its administration", noting the lack of capitalization). I think the article needs to be corrected. Int21h (talk) 05:27, 29 September 2014 (UTC)


 * That's obviously incorrect. See the North American Numbering Plan Administration's home page, noting the capitalization. - BilCat (talk) 05:39, 29 September 2014 (UTC)


 * What is incorrect? The Code of Federal Regulations? Or the FCC Record? Or both? Int21h (talk) 05:51, 29 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Your claim that "Administration" is wrong is incorrect, or the North American Numbering Plan Administration's own website would not use it. - BilCat (talk) 05:55, 29 September 2014 (UTC)


 * So, again I ask, just to be clear, are you indeed claiming that website is more reliable than both the Code of Federal Regulations and the FCC Record? Int21h (talk) 05:57, 29 September 2014 (UTC)


 * And there are many reasons why the website would use another name other than its real title. That's the entire purpose of trademarks and branding. Obviously. Int21h (talk) 06:03, 29 September 2014 (UTC)


 * No, you are confusing two different things. Obviously. The North American Numbering Plan Administration is the service administered by Neustar, which is the North American Numbering Plan Administrator. - BilCat (talk) 06:08, 29 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Then a source is needed saying as much. There are (reliable) sources saying the system is administered by the North American Numbering Plan Administrator (NANPA), e.g.,, and there are no sources saying anything about the "North American Numbering Plan Administration" being a service of it. Int21h (talk) 06:34, 29 September 2014 (UTC)


 * I think the definition given in the regulations of the FCC is best: "The term “North American Numbering Plan Administrator” refers to the entity or entities responsible for managing the NANP." Int21h (talk) 06:46, 29 September 2014 (UTC)


 * "Administrator" also has about ten times (10x) the number of Google hits, 122 000 for "Administrator" versus 13 300 for "Administration". Int21h (talk) 06:48, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Mexico and NANP
I don't believe Mexico actually ever participated in the NANP. Exchanges in northwestern Mexico were originally owned by U.S.-based interests, and interconnection was achieved through area code 903. Later, these came under Mexican ownership, and access switched to numbering within the country - the initial digit of an eight-digit sequence was 6. NANP responded by withdrawing 903 and issuing 706. During this time, Mexico City was constantly accessible by dialing 905. 706 and 905 were not real area codes (while 903 was), but simply "dial-around" mechanisms that enabled NANP customers to dial parts of Mexico even if they did not have IDDD service from their exchange. As NANP began to run out of area codes prior to the 1995 introduction of interchangeable area codes, 706 and 905 were withdrawn from service, requiring NANP customers to use IDDD through country code 52, and if they could not dial it, to go through the operator to call Mexico.

Also, the original 86 area codes were assigned in 1947, so they could not have been based on 1950 Census figures. They probably were dialed based on experience of where long distance calls were being made to. A 1946 plan for area codes was rejected: it would have assigned sequential groups of area codes to a state, such as 212, 213, 214, 215 and 216 being assigned to New York (the 1947 plan instead assigned 212, 914, 315, 716 and 518), and treating Canada as a single state with area codes 910, 919, 918, 917 for the western provinces, 912 and 913 for Ontario, 914 and 915 for Quebec, and 916 for the Maritime provinces. GBC (talk) 04:40, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Citation not really needed?
In the third section, on Numbering, the following sentence appears:

However, the last two digits of NXX cannot both be 1, to avoid confusion with the N11 codes.[citation needed]

The sentence's assertion, that two identical numbers (e.g., 311 and 311) would necessarily be confused, is true on its face. In my view, requiring a citation for a logically factual truth is just frivolous. Is there any reason why the [citation needed] tag should not be removed? Jeepien (talk) 18:20, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

Link to List of North American Numbering Plan area codes
This evening I needed to look into the list of NANP area codes. I recalled from years ago that there was a helpful Wikipedia page for this, but not remembering where it was, I followed my usual strategy for such things: first to the Area Code article, then the North American Numbering Plan article. Finding no list, I tried to take advantage of a widespread Wikipedia convention: search for "list of" on the page. Durn. No list of area codes. I knew it had to exist, so I went through the page history to 2008, when I knew I had seen the list. I found the link and saw also that the List of North American Numbering Plan area codes" article is still active and maintained. Looking now to the source of the current article, I found the link target was present but with a non-obvious text buried in the middle of the article.  Now I knew I had found a defect to fix.

In the article history I encountered the effort of a particular editor in removing multiple links to the article in favor of a single non-redundant link--though the texts of the removed links were always more helpful than the one for the link that the editor retained. This commit message is indicative of the theory: "these things belong in see also, but this is already linked in article". Here is my answer: yes, the list-of page may indeed have a link in the article, but the link itself is not awfully helpful. Indeed, even in the context where the link appears, it is not at all obvious that the link should be to a list-of article.

I have put the useful link back into the See Also section. Editors, this is my plea: so long as that list-of article exists, please do not leave the current article without a link to the "List of North American Numbering Plan area codes" article having text beginning with "List of". The link does not have to stay in the See Also section, but it really should follow the conventional "List of" naming form. If you cannot bear the fact that two links in the current article have the same target (even though their link texts are different), then please remove the non-obvious link around the text "Numbering Plan Area Code" in the "Modern plan" section instead. NoOneAsked (talk) 04:14, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

Geographic Area Codes
There is nowhere in this article that the terms "Geographic Area Codes" and "non-Geographic Area Codes" are defined. It is not clear what they mean from their titles. E.g. suppose Wyoming, and Vermont have the same area code--Do they have a "non-Geographic Area Code"? since that area code does not map to one contiguous geographic area? What about overlays?

Could someone give a clear explanation of these terms? User:Nwbeeson — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.60.34.200 (talk) 17:49, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

Example wrong
The article says this "The number 234-911-5678 is invalid, because the central office code must not be in the form N11" -- but it was looked into here: https://issuetracker.google.com/issues/75404127 and the people said that 911 is a valid office code, it's just not a valid area code. Dsandber (talk) 21:09, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
 * The N11 office codes are reserved per the Telcordia Notes on the Networks as of 2000, and I don't think any have been assigned since then. What reference is this based on? Kbrose (talk) 21:05, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

Not sure what you're asking -- the link I supplied includes references for why they think those numbers are valid. I'm not a domain expert, just someone who was trying to figure out why a number that Wikipedia page says was invalid is being reported by libphonenumber as valid. Would you be willing to chime-in on the ticket I posted to work to resolve this? As someone who isn't a domain expert, I don't want to be in the middle between the Wikipedia subject-matter experts and the Google libphonenumber subject-matter experts. Dsandber (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 21:37, 31 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Well, those links in that page don't contain anything that should change my opinion. However, it shows clearly that N11 codes are special codes (and they are not area codes either), and since there are still places in the NANP that have 7-digit dialing, this would forbid the use of N11 as office codes. Kbrose (talk) 22:13, 31 March 2018 (UTC)