Another post prompted me to look up the “special” USA telephone codes.

All based on (001) XXX -YYY-ZZZZ

Source:  http://freespace.virgin.net/john.cletheroe/usa_can/phone/intro.htm

It looks an though the USA did not fall into the UK trap of clandestine revenue sharing. On the face of it, this looks like the model we should aim for here; that is, all special rate calls confined to one range - 09 (in the UK).

Looking at the XXX part only:

555 There are no operational 555 numbers. This area code is used for fictional telephone numbers in films and television programmes.

800 Toll-free.
877 Toll-free.
888 Toll-free.

900 Special rate calls, ranging from low rate calls to extremely high rate calls. You should hear a recording explaining what the charge will be when you call one of these numbers.

911 Emergency services (equivalent to Britain's "999").

"It looks an though the USA did not fall into the UK trap of clandestine revenue sharing. On the face of it, this looks like the model we should aim for here; that is, all special rate calls confined to one range - 09 (in the UK)."

You are absolutely correct in that assumption! From the same web site you quoted:

"Use of toll-free numbers is far more widespread in the USA and Canada than in the UK. Almost all companies and organisations use toll-free numbers for receiving enquiries from the general public. Certainly no company or organisation in the USA or Canada would even begin to consider using a high cost number such as the UK's dreaded 0891 (or 0870/0845 - my comment) numbers."

As an example, I subscribe to a number of UK magazines as well as a number of US magazines. In the UK magazines, by far the majority of phone numbers - probably at least 80% - are 0870 with a very few 0845. In the US magazine, it is extremely unusual to even find a normal geographic number. Probably 98% of quoted numbers are in the 1-800 toll free range!

What does that tell you about customer service? US companies actually want to form a positive relationship with their customers! UK companies appear to do everything in their power to p*** their customers (and potential customers!) off .....  ;)

Of course, there are even other differences. In the US, I pay a monthly line charge of $14.55. On top of that, there is a FCC 'Network Access Charge' of $6.30. Service charges, unregulated charges such as 'Emergency 911 Charge' and 'Telecommunications Relay Service', and Federal and State taxes are added to give a total 'basic' line rental cost of about $24.50 per month (about 13 pounds). Remember, for that price ALL local calls are included - and untimed -, and since most all calls to companies, even on the other side of the country, are 1-800 calls, they are included as well. Also, calls to mobile phones in the same numbering range are counted as local calls, so a call to a number in my calling zone is always included in that basic cost - land line or mobile.

Friends here that I have spoken to about the 0870 / 0845 scam in the UK are amazed! (I think the term 'gobsmacked' is probably more suitable  :) ). Comments such as 'There would be blood on the streets if they tried that here!' and 'Why do the Brits put up with it?' are some of the milder responses!

Even the response here to other scams seems to be far more in the consumer's favour. A friend was recently caught by Internet diallers on her computer. Two charges totalling some $60.00 to an unknown Austrian number were on her account. Without any hesitation, BellSouth told her to disregard the charges, and they would be deleted. I wonder what BT's attitude would have been?  ???

Hope this helps to put some of the issues into perspective - and just make you more determined to get an equitable solution to this continuing scam!

Hi Mike

Thanks for all the information; it is interesting to compare the two systems, and helps to highlights the scams that have been allowed to proliferate in the UK.    

KK

wrote on Mar 24^th, 2005 at 2:44pm:

... Remember, for that price ALL local calls are included - and untimed -, and since most all calls to companies, even on the other side of the country, are 1-800 calls, they are included as well. Also, calls to mobile phones in the same numbering range are counted as local calls, so a call to a number in my calling zone is always included in that basic cost - land line or mobile.

The main difference between the UK and US is that the UK is a lot smaller. With inclusive call packages (where all calls are free) there is no advantage of dialing a freephone number. The only time it is advantageous is in the small numbers of cases when calling non-mainland destinations.

In the US, toll-free numbers are to allow people to call the company for free from a long distance, or that's the way I understand it from reading kk's link.

Thus, in the UK if we all move over to inclusive packages, there will be no point in freephone numbers as calls are 'free' anyway.

As for mobile calls, am I right in saying that in the US the receiving party has to pay (per minute?) to receive calls?

wrote on Mar 24^th, 2005 at 5:55pm:

As for mobile calls, am I right in saying that in the US the receiving party has to pay (per minute?) to receive calls?

Yes.

Quote:

As for mobile calls, am I right in saying that in the US the receiving party has to pay (per minute?) to receive calls?

That ought to be a qualified 'Yes' from Tanllan.

There are an increasing number of packages where you do not have to pay for calls from other callers on the same provider network. In addition, the use of free unlimited 'walkie-talkie' mobile calls are common with some providers here. Many plans have 'unlimited' minutes - incoming and outgoing - out of business hours. My plan provides unlimited incoming and outgoing minutes at ANY time (ie 24/7) as long as I am on my provider's network. If I roam outside my "home" area (which is, I can assure you, pretty big - most of the east coast),  then - yes, I have limitations. 1000 mins of 'out-of-network' minutes per month. This costs $72.00 per month - about £38.50.

And, best of all, no revenue sharing numbers  ;D

Quote:

The main difference between the UK and US is that the UK is a lot smaller. With inclusive call packages (where all calls are free) there is no advantage of dialing a freephone number. The only time it is advantageous is in the small numbers of cases when calling non-mainland destinations. In the US, toll-free numbers are to allow people to call the company for free from a long distance, or that's the way I understand it from reading kk's link.

Dave, I think the whole concept of call pricing based on distance is long since dead and buried. Long distance calls here in the US cost a fixed price per minute, no matter if you are dialling intra-state or inter-state. This is exactly the same as in the UK, of course. The difference is that you generally have to use a 'long distance provider' who may or may not be the same as your local provider! That's a result of the break up of Ma Bell (ATT) many years ago, and the almost frenetic insistence on competition.

After all, as I think we now all realise, it doesn't cost any more to send a call from one town to the next, or from North Carolina to California (and if your US geography is a bit rusty, that IS a long way!  :) ) You can also have an inclusive package here - they run about $40.00 per month and, like the UK, include all calls within most of the North American numbering system (USA and Canada)

In addition, since we do, in effect pay an 'inclusive' price for local calls, the advantage of a toll-free (1-800) number is that is "included" in that inclusive cost. I agree that in the UK where inclusive packages include calls to any UK geographic number, there is little point in having a toll-free number IF you are making the call from the number in that package. However, a toll-free call is just that - it is free from ANY phone, regardless of the package you are on (and I understand many subscribers in the UK still have pay-per-call packages?).  I would also argue that it shows a potential or returning customer that 'Hey, I care about you! I WANT your business and I'm prepared to pay for it!'

As opposed to - 'If you want to do business with me, boy, am I going to make you pay for it.......' aka 0870!  ;D

Just a quick point


1 for Toll Free as the service is known there are 1 800 and 1 888 numbers the latter being the secod code available as 800 isnt exhausted but the ones where the enxt seven digits can make a word like 1 800 Airways which BA use in America havemostly been used so notw that 1 888 is also toll free

2  Regarding 555 these are not fictious but they are non assigned numbers within a non geographic code, The phone companies use 555 for internal stuff BUT -and this can be useful the format dialing 555 1212 after any US area code connects you to directory assistance for that area much cheaper than using the BT international directory service. So Manhattan Directory assistance is 1 212 555 1212

3 And this is in the trivial pursuits realm US numbers used to be systematically allocated until places like New York City ran out of 1 212 numbers. The rationale for allocating them was fascinating. Back in the days when phones had dials that spun around it took longer-about 1 second to dial a nine or zero than a one. As you were using the phone companies time  as soonas you got dial tone the old and mighty AT&T made sure that each call took the shortest possible time -their time-to dial,  So as New York city got 212 ( area codes could not start with or end with 1 ) and Alaska which got the least got 909. Replaces anorak on hook and resumes life

Trivial pursuit 3b
and, of course, area codes only had a 1 or a 0 as the second digit whilst local office (exchange) codes never had a 1 or a 0 as the second digit so that the kit could see whether or not is was a local or own switch call.

Hi jt0757

Many thanks for the information. It is interesting to see how others have approached telephone numbering.  In the USA it appears that the revenue sharing numbers have been kept to one classification - 900.

I have amended my post to make it clear that I was referring to the first part of the code - the XXX part.

mikeinnc wrote on Mar 2^nd, 2006 at 6:33pm:

The North American system is simple to understand. ... Clear. Simple. Unambiguous.

I can't agree - it may be simple in some ways, but not when you come to dial a number.  I find it almost impossible to know how to dial a given number:

• Is it a long-distance call or not?  Do I have to prefix it with "1"?  :-/
  
• Even if the number I'm dialling has the same area code as the number I'm calling from, sometimes I have to omit the area code and sometimes I have to include it - how do I know which?  And then, do I also add a "1" or don't I?  :-/
  
• Sometimes even if it's a different area code, it can still be a local call, so I musn't add the "1".  :-[*]Some areas (if I understand correctly) you always have to include the area code, e.g. some New York / New Jersey areas.  :-/
  
• OK, sometimes you get a recorded message telling you you've dialled it wrong, but if they can do that, why can't they just connect it anyway?  :-?
  
• And the long-distance prefix seems to vary sometimes, e.g. if you're calling from a hotel or payphone.  :(
  

In the UK, at least you can dial the number as written - no wondering what to dial.
You can omit the area code if you're dialling from the same geographic area, but it doesn't matter if you include it - it's intelligent enough to work out what you want!

And it can be helpful to know whether you're calling a landline or a mobile (sorry - a cell-phone), whereas in N.America you can't tell!

I don't like using the N.American system!  :'(

mikeinnc wrote on Mar 2^nd, 2006 at 6:33pm:

If anyone is interested, they can look at [url=www.nanpa.com[/url]]www.nanpa.com[/url] for further details. But - be aware that the simplicity may make you weep..... ;)

I've just had a look at it - it doesn't look simple to me, with all the following types of codes:

• NPA (Area) Codes
  
• Central Office Codes
  
• N11 Codes
  
• Carrier Id Codes
  
• 500-NXX Codes
  
• 900-NXX Codes
  
• 456-NXX Codes
  
• 555 Line Numbers
  
• ANI II Digits
  
• Vertical Service Codes
  
• 800-855 Line Numbers
  
• overlay codes
  

Just as complex as the UK Numbering Plan!  :'(

I agree that the North American Numbering Plan (NANP) does have its complications, but the central point made is that the American system is not “the bee’s knees” or even the “cat’s whiskers”, but that the NANP appears to offer callers a clear distinction between “normal numbers” and numbers that share revenue, ie “special rate numbers” which are confined to the “900" classification.

When you see “900",  you are alerted to the fact that the call will be at a rate quite different to what you normally pay or expect. That is the central point made.

I am not a champion of the NAMP, but wish to see that our UK telephone numbering system is clear and unambiguous.

We should take the golden opportunity offered by a review of the UK  numbering review, not to continue with the muddle we have now over 084x, 087x and 070, (or indeed make it worse!), but to make it transparent and clear.

The lack of transparency in the UK numbering system has allowed organisations to make hidden profits.   All calls that cost more than normal or are not included in the various call packages, should  be confined to a reorganised “09" class renamed  “Special Rate”.   “Special Rate” numbers should be placed into appropriate  sub-classes of 091, 092, 093 etc., with costs ranging from 1p/min to 150p/min, depending on the service offered.  

Transparency and clarity should be the aim. Transparency is a legislative requirement imposed on Ofcom, but Ofcom’s own research shows that the current numbering system confuses most people, most of the time.

I am not here to try and defend the North American numbering system. I agree,
there are some idiosyncrasies in it. However, what I will claim is what I said
before. When I see a number that starts 1-9xx, I know that it will be a
special rate number. How "special" is immaterial - I just know it will cost me
more. That is what I meant by 'clear and simple'.

Incidentally, with the rapid rise in VoIP, it is now becoming usual to dial the
full number as in 1-555-123-1234 regardless of where you are dialling from. In
addition, why do I want to know if I am calling a mobile / cell phone? Remember,
here in the US, the cost of a call to the caller is the same regardless of
whether it is answered by a cell or landline phone. And - if the number is 1-800, the call
is free whether I call from my landline OR my cell phone. Sounds pretty
unambiguous to me!

I have long believed - and I think, many people who use this site agree with me
- that the 087 and 084 numbers were purposely chosen to obfuscate the fact that
they were going to cost much more than a normal call. It is far too easy for the
general public to be confused with the 0800 freecall numbers - which is exactly
what BT wanted!  :(

I don't think we are really disagreeing with each other - but we may have a different perspective on the US system - familiarity with any system can bring acceptance or make us overlook certain aspects!  I'm certainly not defending the current U.K. system, especially on 08x numbers, but I don't see that the N.American system is any better - nor any clearer or simpler!  :D


mikeinnc wrote on Mar 14^th, 2006 at 6:21pm:

However, what I will claim is what I said before. When I see a number that starts 1-9xx, I know that it will be a special rate number. How "special" is immaterial - I just know it will cost me more. That is what I meant by 'clear and simple'.

But, to be fair, when I see a U.K. number that starts 09xx, I know that it will be a
special rate number. How "special" is immaterial - I just know it will cost me more. That's also fairly 'clear and simple'.


mikeinnc wrote on Mar 14^th, 2006 at 6:21pm:

And - if the number is 1-800, the call is free whether I call from my landline OR my cell phone. Sounds pretty unambiguous to me!

And if the UK number is 0800, the call is free from my landline. Also pretty unambiguous!
(I think the different charge from a cellphone / mobile is a red herring as regards the numbering system - all calls are different from a mobile in the UK because we have a different charging model for mobiles.  This is not related to the numbering system.)


mikeinnc wrote on Mar 14^th, 2006 at 6:21pm:

087 and 084 numbers ... It is far too easy for the general public to be confused with the 0800 freecall numbers

It's no easier and no less easy than confusing other N.American 1-8xx codes with 1-800!   :-/
If I see a N.American 1-8xx number (other than 1-800), I cannot immediately tell whether it is an area code or a toll-free number - so I DO NOT immediately know whether I am going to be charged, unless the literature tells me or unless I happen to remember which 1-8xx codes are toll-free and which are area codes - and which are speciall numbers like 811.

How is that really any different from U.K. 08xx numbers?  Some 08xx numbers are free, some are chargeable - in BOTH systems.  ::)

In the U.K. I DO KNOW that it cannot be a regular area code: it must be some kind of special number, whether free or 'premium'.
In the UK, I have to remember that 080x are free, 084x & 087x are 'premium'.
In the US I have to remember that 1-855, 866, 877, and potentially 88x are toll-free; and that other codes are chargeable.
Is that really any different or clearer or simpler? In fact, there are more differences to remember than in the U.K..  :-/


mikeinnc wrote on Mar 14^th, 2006 at 6:21pm:

I have long believed - and I think, many people who use this site agree with me - that the 087 and 084 numbers were purposely chosen to obfuscate the fact that they were going to cost much more than a normal call.

I know that that is why they are NOW chosen by companies - but I don't think it's fair to say that that is why they were originally chosen.  Initially, when 084x & 087x were first used, they did correspond to local and national rates, and there was little or no choice of telecoms provider or price differential between providers.


mikeinnc wrote on Mar 14^th, 2006 at 6:21pm:

It is far too easy for the general public to be confused with the 0800 freecall numbers - which is exactly what BT wanted!  :(

As I've said above, I don't think it's any different from someone confusing N.American 1-8xx area codes with 1-800 toll-free numbers.  If you know the system, you don't get confused; but strangers may get confused.

It's more an isuue of users thinking - and companies promoting - that 084x numbers still correspond to local rate and 087x to national rate.  :'(


mikeinnc wrote on Mar 14^th, 2006 at 6:21pm:

Incidentally, with the rapid rise in VoIP, it is now becoming usual to dial the full number as in 1-555-123-1234 regardless of where you are dialling from.

Well in January, I was having problems knowing whether to prefix a number with the 1- and the area code, and it did make a difference to whether the number connected or not - whereas it wouldn't in the UK.


mikeinnc wrote on Mar 14^th, 2006 at 6:21pm:

In addition, why do I want to know if I am calling a mobile / cell phone? Remember, here in the US, the cost of a call to the caller is the same regardless of whether it is answered by a cell or landline phone.

It's not necessarily an issue of cost.  Sometimes, it's helpful to know whether you are calling an office, where you might be able to speak to someone else if the first person is not available, or calling a cellphone where you might be interrupting a meeting or someone driving.  Or you might want to know whether you are calling someone's home or their mobile.  If you've got both numbers, in the UK you can easily tell which is which, whereas in the US you can't.

I'm not trying to defend the U.K. system nor specifically knock the N.American system - I just think that both have their good and bad points, and that objectively the N.American system has just as many ambiguities and oddities as the U.K. system.  Overall, I cannot agree that it is really any clearer or simpler - just different!

It isn't that confusing for USA; well it shouldn't be ...

800, 866, 877, 888 are free (spot the pattern); 855 and 88x are assigned to the same use but not issued.

I believe that 900 is premium rate, but not all 9xx, well my 925 isn't anyway.

An earlier post mentions something about dialling time being taken into account for old allocations, saying that 909 was for Alaska. Not quite - 909 was allocated to California in 1992; Alaska 907 since 1957.

andy9 wrote on Mar 15^th, 2006 at 1:44am:

It isn't that confusing for USA; well it shouldn't be ... 800, 866, 877, 888 are free (spot the pattern); 855 and 88x are assigned to the same use but not issued.

I had spotted the pattern, but also in that pattern are 811, 822, 833, 844 & 899 (altho' I now note that none of those appears to be in use).  My point wasn't really that this is particularly confusing, but rather that it is no less confusing than the UK system where all 080x numbers are free and other 08x numbers are not free.
(Incidentally, according to the database on the NANPA.com site, 855 is in use.)


andy9 wrote on Mar 15^th, 2006 at 1:44am:

I believe that 900 is premium rate, but not all 9xx, well my 925 isn't anyway. An earlier post mentions something about dialling time being taken into account for old allocations, saying that 909 was for Alaska. Not quite - 909 was allocated to California in 1992; Alaska 907 since 1957.

I stand corrected on that, but in my defence (not defense! :D) will say that I was going on what mikeinnc said:

mikeinnc wrote on Mar 14^th, 2006 at 6:21pm:

When I see a number that starts 1-9xx, I know that it will be a special rate number.

In the UK, all 09x are premium rate; in the US 900 is premium rate and other 9xx codes are normal area codes.  Again, fairly straight-forward, but no more so than the UK codes.

On a different tack, when calling a Canadian area code or another non-US (e.g. Carribean) area code from the USA, is the call charge the same as calling a long-distance USA area code?  Also, how do you know which calls are local (and therefore free) and which are long-distance?

(For the avoidance of doubt, I will not defend the extortionate charges made for 084x & 087x calls in the UK, nor the marketing of these as 'local' or 'national', and personally I think they should all be 09xx numbers - but I just don't see that, overall, the  N.American system is any clearer or simpler as others have claimed.)

As someone who lives in the United States, I can assure you that the US system is simple and understandable by virtually everyone here. Of course there are some anomalies where ten or even eleven digit dialing is necessary, however if you make an error, there is generally an announcement. Phone books here give comprehensive information about overlays and whether local or ten-digits are needed. The anomalies are caused by expansion in metro areas where overlay and additional codes are required. Rather than come up with some 0870-type solution, the NANP allocates further geographic codes. Sure, it isn't perfect, but vastly superior to the balls-up that Ofcom has hoisted onto the unsuspecting UK public, responsible for BILLIONS of pounds of additional costs faced by the public.

For Americans, Canadians and other countries within the NANP, there are only a few types of numbering schemes that actually matter:

Emergency number;
Local numbers, generally unmetered ('free');
Long distance (toll) services, eg Miami to New York or Los Angeles to Montreal;
Toll-free numbers (generally free, even from cellphones, although standard airtime applies).

Everything else is, generally, an atypical call for a NANP subscriber.

PRS here is *very* tightly regulated, unlike the system 'back home' administered by the wholly inadequate and inept ICSTIS which only is interested in the PRS scam,mers and their profits. Consumer protection is a low priority for this clueless organ of the scamming industry.

The regulators here, the FCC, NANP administrators, FTC and others have ensured that a scam-free system prevails for the vast majority of the AMerican, Canadian and Caribbean public. The nonsense 0845, 0870 and similar schemes simply do not exist.

We can call virtually any public body, police force, commercial organization, non-profit, service provider, and indeed anyone at either local unmetered cost or completely free of charge. We also have a pretty good idea how much a long distance call will cost prior to making the call.

Think about calling Nat West, Sky, Northamptonshire Police, a patient in hospital, credit card company and a IT help desk, and compare with calling similar providers in the US. Calling the Nat West will cost you. Calling Bank of America will not.

Only one body is responsible for the abject failure of the UK's numbering plan, and that is the useless Ofcom, staffed by cronies and incompetents who have little idea of the exploitation that results from their inappropriate decisions.

The NANP is superior to the UK NTNP in virtually every aspect that you would wish to make a comparison between the two schemes. The NANP is not perfect, but, for a huge geographic area from Nunavut to Miami and beyond, it does a pretty good job.

I rest my case.

Not only that, with some providers it's possible to call almost all US numbers free from UK, but not UK 08 numbers.

andy9 wrote on Mar 15^th, 2006 at 2:50pm:

Not only that, with some providers it's possible to call almost all US numbers free from here, but not UK 08 numbers.

Indeed, and yet further evidence of the uselessness of the British regulator. The UK, with a major world economy and a significant trading nation, has a wholly inadequate telecommunication numbering system designed seemingly to exploit those that use it.

Some reference material from the NANP annual report 2004:

http://www.nanpa.com/reports/NANP_AR_2004.pdf

Area Code Inventory

NPA codes are in NXX format, where N is any digit 2-9 and X
is any digit 0-9, yielding 8*10*10 = 800 combinations. Of these,
119 are not assignable or have been set aside by the Industry
Numbering Committee (INC) for special purposes. These 119
codes are listed below.


N11 (8) Abbreviated dialing

N9X (80) Reserved for use during expansion
of the NANP

37X and 96X (20) Reserved by the INC for future use where
contiguous blocks of codes are required

555 and 950 (2) Not used as NPA codes to avoid
possible confusion

880-887 and 889 (9) Set aside for next series of toll-free codes.

Subtracting 119 from 800 leaves 681 assignable NPA codes. Of
these, 366 have been assigned. Of these 366, 326 are in service
and 40 are awaiting introduction. Of the 326 NPA codes in
service, 316 are geographic and 10 are non-geographic.
Of the 681 assignable NPA codes, 315 are currently unassigned.
Of these codes, 49 are easily recognizable codes (ERCs)
currently allocated for non-geographic use, and 266 are
general-purpose codes. Of these 266, 163 are reserved (*1) for use
as future geographic codes, leaving 103 available, unreserved
general-purpose codes.

Of the 49 unassigned ERCs, 12 are reserved (*2), leaving 37 available.


NPA Reserved Codes are Listed Below.

220
221
223
232
235
236
238
241
247
249
257
258
259
261
263
271
272
273
274
279
280
286
287
326
327
328
329
332
343
346
353
354
357
359
363
365
367
368
382
384
387
389
421
427
428
429
431
436
437
439
445
448
449
451
453
457
458
460
461
463
468
471
472
474
476
481
483
485
486
487
489
522
531
533
534
535
536
537
539
544
546
548
558
565
566
568
572
575
576
577
579
581
582
584
587
588
622
625
629
633
634
637
639
640
644
645
652
655
665
672
673
676
677
680
681
683
685
686
688
699
721
728
729
730
735
739
742
743
745
746
748
749
750
751
752
753
761
762
768
782
789
820
821
824
825
826
837
838
839
840
841
851
854
861
871
873
875
879
921
923
924
926
927
929
930
934
938
942
945
946
948
953
974
981
982
986



*1 These codes have been designated for the relief of NPAs that NRUF
predicts
will exhaust in the next 10 years. Please note that NANPA previously
reserved codes for those NPAs projected to exhaust in the next 20 years, but
INC agreed in 2004 to reduce the time frame to 10 years. Also included are
20
additional codes reserved for use in Canada at the request of the CRTC.

*2 These include six codes reserved for Personal Communications Service
(500)
expansion and six codes reserved for Canada. Canada has also reserved 699,
which is counted as an expansion code.


Non-Geographic NPAs in Service

The table below lists the non-geographic NPAs in service as
of December 31, 2004, along with the service for which each
is used.

NPA Service

456 Inbound International
500 Personal Communications Service
600 Canadian Services
700 Interexchange Carrier Services
710 US Government
800 Toll-Free
866 Toll-Free
877 Toll-Free
888 Toll-Free
900 Premium Services


NPA codes 855, 844, 833, and 822 have been assigned for use as
toll free codes and will be introduced as needed.

NPA code 456 allows callers to select a carrier for international
calls terminating in a NANP country. Carriers implement this
service by activating 456 numbers in each country of origin.

500 numbers are used for "follow me" personal communications
services. Personal communications service is defined more
formally as a set of capabilities that allows some combination of
personal mobility, terminal mobility and service
profile management.

NPA code 700 was assigned in 1983 for use by all interexchange
carriers. Each carrier has the use of all 7.92 million numbers in
the 700 NPA. When a call is made to a 700 number, the local
exchange carrier passes the call to the caller's interexchange
carrier, selected either through presubscription or override.

Note that 700 numbers, unlike other NANP numbers,
may terminate in different ways, depending on how the
interexchange carrier has allocated the numbers.

900 numbers are used for premium services, with the cost of
each 900 call billed to the calling party.

In 2004, NPA codes 880, 881 and 882 were returned to the NPA
inventory and are now set-aside for future toll free service.

These codes were used for "paid toll-free service," a service
that permitted callers in one NANP countries to call toll-free
numbers in another NANP country by dialing 880 in place of
800, 881 in place of 888, or 882 in place of 877.

andy9 wrote on Mar 15^th, 2006 at 2:50pm:

Not only that, with some providers it's possible to call almost all US numbers free from here, but not UK 08 numbers.

Not clear what your point is, primarily because I don't know where "here" is?  Are you in the US or the UK?

If you're in the US, why should you expect to be able to dial any UK numbers free.  We (in the UK) can't dial US 0800 numbers free.

If you're in the UK, how do you dial US numbers free?

idb wrote on Mar 15^th, 2006 at 2:39pm:

Of course there are some anomalies where ten or even eleven digit dialing is necessary

I thought you usually had to dial 11 digits except for local calls?


idb wrote on Mar 15^th, 2006 at 2:39pm:

if you make an error, there is generally an announcement.

same as UK.


idb wrote on Mar 15^th, 2006 at 2:39pm:

Phone books here give comprehensive information about overlays and whether local or ten-digits are needed.

But you have to look it up, if you haven't already learnt how to dial a particular number.  In the UK, you can just dial the number as given - you don't have to look in the 'phone book to find how to dial a number.  If it's the same area code, you can omit the area code, otherwise you include it - simple!


idb wrote on Mar 15^th, 2006 at 2:39pm:

The anomalies are caused by expansion

Precisely my point - there are anomalies just as there are here.  It's the anomalies that remove some of the simplicity and clarity - in both systems.


idb wrote on Mar 15^th, 2006 at 2:39pm:

overlay and additional codes

I've heard "overlay codes" mentioned - what are they?


idb wrote on Mar 15^th, 2006 at 2:39pm:

Sure, it isn't perfect, but vastly superior to the balls-up that Ofcom has hoisted onto the unsuspecting UK public ...

No-one has yet demonstrated to me exactly how or where it is "vastly superior", whereas I've explained in an earlier post why I think it has just as many anomalies and oddities as the UK numbering system.


idb wrote on Mar 15^th, 2006 at 2:39pm:

For Americans, Canadians and other countries within the NANP, there are only a few types of numbering schemes that actually matter: Emergency number; Local numbers, generally unmetered ('free'); Long distance (toll) services, eg Miami to New York or Los Angeles to Montreal; Toll-free numbers (generally free, even from cellphones, although standard airtime applies).

How is that different from UK.  We have:

Emergency number (112 & 999);
Geographic numbers (equivalent to your Local + Long-distance) (01x & 02x);
Mobile (077x, 078x, 079x);
Freephone (080x);
'Premium' numbers (which you also have) (084x, 087x, 09x);
Personal numbers (070x).

You have:

Emergency number (911);
Geographic numbers (Local or Long-distance) (no straight definition - everything that isn't included elsewhere));
Mobile (same as Geo numbers);
Freephone (800, 855, 866, 877, 888, 88x) (simpler or clearer than 080x?);
'Premium' numbers (which you also have) (900) (yes, better than our mixture);
Personal numbers (500, 522, 533, 544, 566, 577 ,588) (simpler or clearer than 070x?).

(I know neither of the above is comprehensive, but I think it illustrates the point.)


idb wrote on Mar 15^th, 2006 at 2:39pm:

Everything else is, generally, an atypical call for a NANP subscriber.

But it's the atypical / unusual ones that catch people out.


idb wrote on Mar 15^th, 2006 at 2:39pm:

PRS here is *very* tightly regulated, unlike the system 'back home' administered by the wholly inadequate and inept ICSTIS which only is interested in the PRS scam,mers and their profits. Consumer protection is a low priority for this clueless organ of the scamming industry.

I wouldn't attempt to argue otherwise - but that's to do with the type of regulation, not with the numbering system.


idb wrote on Mar 15^th, 2006 at 2:39pm:

The regulators here, the FCC, NANP administrators, FTC and others have ensured that a scam-free system prevails for the vast majority of the AMerican, Canadian and Caribbean public. The nonsense 0845, 0870 and similar schemes simply do not exist.

Again, I wouldn't dispute that 084x & 087x are anomalies in our numbering system.  But they can't be confused with standard geo numbers because no geo numbers begin 08.
I didn't say, the UK system doesn't have anomalies - just that I don't think its anomalies are any worst than the US anomalies!  Your 08xx toll-free and 05xx personal numbers are interspersed with standard area codes, whereas ours are in 'stand-alone' ranges.


idb wrote on Mar 15^th, 2006 at 2:39pm:

We can call virtually any public body, police force, commercial organization, non-profit, service provider, and indeed anyone at either local unmetered cost ...

Agreed - but that's to do with the tarriff plans, not the numbering system.


idb wrote on Mar 15^th, 2006 at 2:39pm:

... or completely free of charge. ... Calling the Nat West will cost you. Calling Bank of America will not.

Likewise - but that's to do with the customer service ethos, not the numbering system.


idb wrote on Mar 15^th, 2006 at 2:39pm:

We also have a pretty good idea how much a long distance call will cost prior to making the call.

So do we these days.  And with 1899 ANY call costs 3p irrespective of the length of the call or the time of day.
In fact, when I speak to my brother in Canada, he prefers me to call him (or call him back) because its cheaper (4p per call + 0.5p per minute).

For geographic & international calls I think we now get a fairly good rate in the UK.

... Continued in next message ...

idb wrote on Mar 15^th, 2006 at 2:39pm:

Only one body is responsible for the abject failure of the UK's numbering plan, and that is the useless Ofcom, staffed by cronies and incompetents who have little idea of the exploitation that results from their inappropriate decisions.

I'm certainly not going to argue in favour of Ofcom, but I think the only significant failures in the numbering plan are 084x & 087x being 'pseudo-premium, and 070x being confusable with mobile numbers.

The other points you mention are to do with tarriffs and customer service - not the numbering system.


idb wrote on Mar 15^th, 2006 at 2:39pm:

The NANP is superior to the UK NTNP in virtually every aspect that you would wish to make a comparison between the two chemes.

Well, I've compared them above - and I can't agree for the reasons I've given.
But I'm also not arguing that's it's INferior - just different.

Finally, I'd still appreciate an answer to a question in my earlier message:

On a different tack, when calling a Canadian area code or another non-US (e.g. Carribean) area code from the USA, is the call charge the same as calling a long-distance USA area code?

(I'm just curious on that.)

trevord wrote on Mar 15^th, 2006 at 4:05pm:

andy9 wrote on Mar 15th, 2006 at 2:50pm: Not only that, with some providers it's possible to call almost all US numbers free from here, but not UK 08 numbers. Not clear what your point is, primarily because I don't know where "here" is?  Are you in the US or the UK? If you're in the US, why should you expect to be able to dial any UK numbers free.  We (in the UK) can't dial US 0800 numbers free. If you're in the UK, how do you dial US numbers free?

I've edited that post, for those to whom it wasn't clear - ie from UK.

But actually I don't use any of those providers yet.

trevord wrote on Mar 15^th, 2006 at 5:01pm:

Finally, I'd still appreciate an answer to a question in my earlier message: On a different tack, when calling a Canadian area code or another non-US (e.g. Carribean) area code from the USA, is the call charge the same as calling a long-distance USA area code? (I'm just curious on that.)

Surely you can look up your own tariff information, especially as you have the advantage of knowing which countries you are interested in?

trevord wrote on Mar 15^th, 2006 at 5:01pm:

Finally, I'd still appreciate an answer to a question in my earlier message: On a different tack, when calling a Canadian area code or another non-US (e.g. Carribean) area code from the USA, is the call charge the same as calling a long-distance USA area code? (I'm just curious on that.)

This will clearly depend upon the provider! For example, my local service is provided by Bell South, although I do not use it for long distance calls. On its dollar plan ($1/month), LDD calls within the US are 10c/min (out of state), 9c/min within state, to Canada (with dollar international plan) 7c/min and to the UK 9c/min (geographic) and 22c/min (+447 and +448). A different plan cuts domestic LDD to 5c/min and other plans are all inclusive. There is no simple answer - call costs will vary, however it is easy obtaining the info. Try that in the UK with 0844 12 and 0844 23 and 0844 34 etc where call charges vary depending on the fifth, sixth and possibly seventh digit. Look on cellular providers' web sites and try to determine call costs to these numbers in advance and see how difficult it is. Here, because we don't have this nonsense, call charges are clear an easy to find!

idb wrote on Mar 15^th, 2006 at 5:34pm:

This will clearly depend upon the provider!

So are you saying that there is no clear cut way of acertaining whether a call from one particular area code to another is local or long distance? Is it generally a uniform distance from your location, as is the case with BT's local/national rate distinctions?

So, if you are near a state border, does a call to the neighbouring state count as long-distance whereas a call to the other side of your state count as local, despite the fact that the long distance call is a shorter distance than the local one (in this case)? Or does it work in a different way?

Dave wrote on Mar 15^th, 2006 at 5:45pm:

idb wrote on Mar 15th, 2006 at 5:34pm: This will clearly depend upon the provider! So are you saying that there is no clear cut way of acertaining whether a call from one particular area code to another is local or long distance? Is it generally a uniform distance from your location, as is the case with BT's local/national rate distinctions? So, if you are near a state border, does a call to the neighbouring state count as long-distance whereas a call to the other side of your state count as local, despite the fact that the long distance call is a shorter distance than the local one (in this case)? Or does it work in a different way?

The local calling areas are always listed in the residential phone directory with the relevant numbering blocks that are considered local. If I make a call within my own area code that is outside the local charge area using seven digit dialing, a message results asking me to redial with 1 + area code then the seven digits. Local dialing does have a distance aspect to it, but I do not believe it is as rigid as with the old BT 35 mile/56 km system.

In metro areas within the same state, and Orlando is one that springs to mind, local charging may take place even though eleven digit dialing is required (407 and 321 area codes). In other metro areas that are bi and tri state, again local calling areas may cross area code boundaries and state boundaries - the DC, Virginia and Maryland area is a good example where calls from a Washington suburb in VA to a 202 number in DC proper may be treated as local.

This may sound complex, however it is always detailed in the first few pages of the phone book as to what constitutes a local call.

For local calls from my provider, they are unmetered. For calls within my area code that are outside the local charge area, calls are charged at a flat rate per call (it's either 10c, 20c or 25c, I can't recall without getting an old phone bill, and I'm not concerned about the charge). Long distance will depend upon the given LDD plan, if any.

andy9 wrote on Mar 15^th, 2006 at 5:09pm:

Surely you can look up your own tariff information, especially as you have the advantage of knowing which countries you are interested in?

I guess I could, if I first looked up who the US telecoms providers are.
I didn't have a particular country in mind.  I was curious as to whether different area codes cost different amounts according to whether they are in the same or a different country from the caller.  I thought someone may have a general answer - and idb has helpfully given one.

I was interested if you knew of a provider for free calls from UK to N.America (specifically Canada) - the cheapest I know is 0.5p / min with 18185.

idb wrote on Mar 15^th, 2006 at 5:34pm:

This will clearly depend upon the provider! For example, my local service ... . There is no simple answer - call costs will vary,

Thanks, idb.  I realise that different providers will vary, but I thought maybe there was a common trait between providers as to certain call types being more/less expensive than others.

As I've said in another message, it was just curiosity as to whether all geographic area codes within the NANPA generally cost the same or differ according to the area.


idb wrote on Mar 15^th, 2006 at 5:34pm:

however it is easy obtaining the info. Try that in the UK with 0844 12 and 0844 23 and 0844 34 etc where call charges vary depending on the fifth, sixth and possibly seventh digit. Look on cellular providers' web sites and try to determine call costs to these numbers in advance and see how difficult it is. Here, because we don't have this nonsense, call charges are clear an easy to find!

To be fair, it's generally fairly easy to find costs of geographic calls in the UK (which is what we were talking about here) - and for 99.9% of callers, they are the same for any geographic call within the U.K., so won't vary according to the area code.
It's also usually fairly easy to find the cost of international calls from the UK.

Incidentally, I was surprised that, in your example, calling Canada can be cheaper than calling long-distance within the US.

On the other hand, I'm certainly not going to try to defend the tarriffs for 084x & 087x numbers, nor the variation between different codes, nor the difficulty of finding the costs.  I tend to regard those as premium numbers (which they are in all but name) - and for any premium number you do have to look up the costs carefully - if you can find them.  I assume that premium numbers within the US are also different costs for different call types / different numbers?

I just went into the BellSouth.com website to try to find the cost of US 900 xxx xxxx calls - no doubt I probably wasn't looking in the right place - but I couldn't find any info about the cost of such calls, only that they are excluded from many/most calling plans and that they are referred to as "non-regulated".  So on my very non-scientific survey of one site  :P, it wasn't easy to find the cost of US premium rate calls either.   :P

idb wrote on Mar 15^th, 2006 at 6:03pm:

For local calls from my provider, they are unmetered. For calls within my area code that are outside the local charge area, calls are charged at a flat rate per call (it's either 10c, 20c or 25c, I can't recall without getting an old phone bill, and I'm not concerned about the charge). Long distance will depend upon the given LDD plan, if any.

For all geographic calls - to anywhere within the U.K. - with 1899, the calls are unmetered at a flat rate of 3p (about 5.25c) per call.  For a call to the US or Canada, I pay 0.5p/min (less than 1c per min).

trevord wrote on Mar 15^th, 2006 at 7:16pm:

I just went into the BellSouth.com website to try to find the cost of US 900 xxx xxxx calls - no doubt I probably wasn't looking in the right place - but I couldn't find any info about the cost of such calls, only that they are excluded from many/most calling plans and that they are referred to as "non-regulated".  So on my very non-scientific survey of one site  :P, it wasn't easy to find the cost of US premium rate calls either.   :P

PRS call charges are set by the provider of the service and are not specifically related to the numbering. For example, a call to a technical help desk may be charged at $5 per minute, another at $3 per minute. The costs are indicated on the advert or other promotional literature. This is why you won't get a figure from Bell South or indeed anyone else as the costs vary according to the service on offer. Many, perhaps most, 900 numbers are used for 'adult services'. I'm sure a google search will reveal more info on this!

trevord wrote on Mar 15^th, 2006 at 7:23pm:

idb wrote on Mar 15th, 2006 at 6:03pm: For local calls from my provider, they are unmetered. For calls within my area code that are outside the local charge area, calls are charged at a flat rate per call (it's either 10c, 20c or 25c, I can't recall without getting an old phone bill, and I'm not concerned about the charge). Long distance will depend upon the given LDD plan, if any. For all geographic calls - to anywhere within the U.K. - with 1899, the calls are unmetered at a flat rate of 3p (about 5.25c) per call.  For a call to the US or Canada, I pay 0.5p/min (less than 1c per min).

Indeed, but just how many UK *businesses* or *organizations* (not individuals) actually use geographic numbering these days? Very few. To carry out routine, day-to-day activities by phone, you invariably have to call a NGN. Here we either call toll-free (0c/min) or local (0c/min). Try calling BA, NatWest or Sky with 1899 and see how much you'll pay (as you already know). Here we can call virtually any customer service organization for nowt.

idb wrote on Mar 15^th, 2006 at 7:23pm:

PRS call charges are set by the provider of the service and are not specifically related to the numbering. ... The costs are indicated on the advert or other promotional literature. ...

I think that here the 09x numbers probably have to show the cost on any advertising - but you can also look up the cost from the first part of the number - essentially the same as the 084x & 087x numbers, except that with those they do not have to show the cost in any advertising, although they are now being encouraged to.
The main issue in all of this is, I think, that 084x & 087x are effectively premium rate services where the cost is not explicit.  If they were 09xx numbers (as they should be), I don't think we would be having this discussion.

Well it seems to me that neither telephone plans are perfect and the UK could learn from how the US do it and vice-versa (only in certain aspects though).

The lack of disctinction (with regards to call charges) between local and national rate, I believe has made our numbering system (geographicals anyhow) easier.  Before this it was hard to determine what was local and what was national with regards to area codes/STD codes.  I know BT's website does help you to determine what is local and what isn't for those few on Light User Scheme.  I don't remember Telewest having a similar thing to determine what they classed as local and national although they were probably same as BT's.

I agree that our 0800/0808 range known as freephone is ok the way it is but the rest of our numbering range is completely and utterly messed up beyond comprehension in some cases!  We have 0844 costing various amounts and in some cases more than an 0845.  Then there is 0871 which again can cost various amounts upto 7.51ppm (0870) / or upto 10ppm (0871) but in most cases these 087x numbers are generally the same cost for the price-band they are in.  It is impossible to determine from the first few digits or our whole 084x/087x range just what they will cost and what makes it worse it is often difficult to actually still obtain these costs from landline companies nevermind mobile networks.

As idb has pointed out, it is almost impossible to get accurate price information on calls to NGNs from mobiles - the worst is 0844 - simply because mobile networks charge more for these calls (a lot more in most cases) so they go out their way to hide the cost of such calls so as not to put people off ringing them.  All this despite the fact that they are under obligation to publish their tariff costs to such numbers which when I contacted ofcon over this they agreed but as usual with ofcon they just responded saying that they are looking into it and it will be mentioned in a forthcoming consultation (which it was in the NTS Way Forward).  Basically, even though they are under obligation to display this information, ofcon was trying to get out of forcing this upon them for as long as possible.

I agree that the local/LDD thing even within the same state appears confusing which is why I think ours is easier (like I said geographicals only though).

The reason why in the States, calls charges are lower for calls from mobiles and calls to toll-free numbers are actually free from mobiles is because the cost of this is ofset against the income the US networks get when they charge the person who is actually receiving the call as well as the person making the call.  At least over here we only get charged for outgoing calls and not receiving them like the US but of course this comes with a price and this is the high cost of calls to NGN's, premium rate, freephone numbers, and to a lesser degree, calls to landline numbers.

IDB, what is the average cost of line rental in the States for comparitive reasons to what we get charged here (£11 by BT)?

idb wrote on Mar 15^th, 2006 at 7:28pm:

Indeed, but just how many UK *businesses* or *organizations* (not individuals) actually use geographic numbering these days? Very few.

I don't think it's fair to say "very few".  A lot of smaller or medium size businesses do still use geo numbers.  I think it's primarily - but certainly not exclusively - the 'call centre type' & big businesses that use NGNs  - altho' often the ones you have to call a lot.


idb wrote on Mar 15^th, 2006 at 7:28pm:

Here we can call virtually any customer service organization for nowt.

Yes, and as I hope you realise by now, I'm not going to defend that.  But, as I said before, I think that's as much down to customer (non-)service ethos and what they can get away with - which they wouldn't get away with in the US. The availability of 'hidden' pseudo-premium numbers certainly doesn't help that situation tho'.

Incidentally, a couple of months ago, I needed to send a parcel from UK to US by courier.  I called FedEx because they had an 0800 number - but it connected to India and the service / knowledge of the operator was *c*r*a*p*, so I gave up on them and called another company, with an 0845 number, and got far better service!  So freephone is not always advantageous!   :P

bbb_uk wrote on Mar 15^th, 2006 at 7:41pm:

IDB, what is the average cost of line rental in the States for comparitive reasons to what we get charged here (£11 by BT)?

I do not know the average cost within the US, but my Bell South bill, which provides unmetered local calling within the local area and 25c flat rate per call drop within the county outside of the local area, with CLI, ACR, basic voice mail and call waiting is $41 per month. Take off around $8 per month to exclude the extras (CLI etc). So, just over $120 per quarter, or 68 pounds per quarter. I have no idea of the current cost of BT basic line rental, but I believe it to be less than what I pay here. Nevertheless customer service from Bell South is excellent - you actually speak to someone who knows the area and is not situated thousands of miles away. Having been through three hurricanes, with most utility wiring exposed to the elements, they do a great job here in sunny FL.

trevord wrote on Mar 15^th, 2006 at 7:44pm:

idb wrote on Mar 15th, 2006 at 7:28pm: Indeed, but just how many UK *businesses* or *organizations* (not individuals) actually use geographic numbering these days? Very few. I don't think it's fair to say "very few".  A lot of smaller or medium size businesses do still use geo numbers.  I think it's primarily - but certainly not exclusively - the 'call centre type' & big businesses that use NGNs  - altho' often the ones you have to call a lot.

Fair comment, although even the small and medium businesses are now being missold NGNs by the NGN scammers under the pretext of 'local' and 'national' call rates.


trevord wrote on Mar 15^th, 2006 at 7:44pm:

idb wrote on Mar 15th, 2006 at 7:28pm: Here we can call virtually any customer service organization for nowt. Yes, and as I hope you realise by now, I'm not going to defend that.  But, as I said before, I think that's as much down to customer (non-)service ethos and what they can get away with - which they wouldn't get away with in the US. The availability of 'hidden' pseudo-premium numbers certainly doesn't help that situation tho'.

Totally agree

Main domestic BT packages:
Option 1 - GBP 11.00 per month, including evening & weekend geo calls at 5.5p for the first hour per call.
Option 2 - GBP 16.50 per month, including free evening & weekend geo calls
Option 3 - GBP 25.50 per month, including all geo calls free up to 1 hour.

I know the details will depend on the plan and provider, but as a general rule, are calls FROM cellphones the same price or more expensive compared to calls from landlines in the US?

If more expensive, what about calls from cellphones to PRS numbers?

trevord wrote on Mar 15^th, 2006 at 7:16pm:

I just went into the BellSouth.com website to try to find the cost of US 900 xxx xxxx calls - no doubt I probably wasn't looking in the right place - but I couldn't find any info about the cost of such calls, only that they are excluded from many/most calling plans and that they are referred to as "non-regulated".  So on my very non-scientific survey of one site  :P, it wasn't easy to find the cost of US premium rate calls either.   :P

Consumer protection on 900 calls is very strong (compare to ICSTIS). Local service providers cannot disconnect local service for non-payment of 900 call charges. 900 call charges can be removed from the bill if unpaid for 60 days. Oral notification of disputed 900 charges is sufficient to trigger a billing review where no payment is required during that review. The billing review must be completed within 90 days. If the billing was correct, you get a written notice of the amount and the due date. If you fail to pay, you may be reported as delinquent with collection efforts taking place, however you cannot be disconnected from your local or long distance servcice provider. All 900 services have to comply with federal laws and regulations. 900 blocking can be obtained free of charge.

All print, radio, and television advertisements for 900 number services must include:

the total cost of the call if there's a flat fee;
the per-minute rate if the call is charged by the minute, as well as any minimum charge. If the length of the program is known in advance, the ad also must state the total cost of the complete program;
the range of fees if there are different rates for different options. The ad also must state the initial cost of the call and any minimum charges;
the cost of any other 900 number to which you may be transferred; and
any other fees the service might charge.

This information can't be hidden in small print: The cost of the call must be next to the 900 number and printed in a size that's at least half the size of the 900 number. In a television ad, an audio cost disclosure must also be made.

From the FTC web site:

Billing Errors and Disputes
The 900 Number Rule has procedures for resolving billing disputes. Always check your telephone bill for 900 number charges. For each 900 call, your statement should include the date, time, and, for services that have per-minute rates, the length of the call. These charges must appear separately from local and long distance charges. Your statement also must include a local or toll-free number for questions about your pay-per-call charges.

Under FCC regulations, the phone company cannot disconnect your regular local or long-distance service if you don't pay a 900 number charge. However, you could be blocked from making future calls to 900 numbers if you don't pay legitimate 900 number charges.

If you find an error on your bill, follow the instructions on your statement. They will tell you who to call or write to dispute the charge. In most cases, it will be your local or long-distance telephone company, but it could be the 900 number company or an independent firm that provides billing services for that company.

You must notify the company listed on your bill within 60 days from the date the first statement containing the error was sent. The company must acknowledge your notice in writing within 40 days unless it has resolved the dispute by that time. Within two billing cycles, but no longer than 90 days, the company must:

correct the billing error and notify you of the correction, or
investigate the matter and either correct the error or explain the reason for not doing so.
A company cannot charge you to investigate or respond to a billing dispute. No one can try to collect the disputed charge from you — or report it to a credit bureau — until the company handling the dispute either has corrected the error or explained its reason for not doing so. Companies that don't comply with these rules lose their right to collect up to $50 of each disputed charge.

However, even if the 900 number charge is removed from your bill, the service provider might pursue the charge some other way, such as through a collection agency. If so, you have additional rights under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.

idb wrote on Mar 15^th, 2006 at 8:00pm:

Consumer protection on 900 calls is very strong

Yes, I inferred that from what you said before.
It was this on the BellSouth site that prompted my earlier comment:

Quote:

Question: What are non-regulated charges? Answer: Non-regulated charges are those charges which are not controlled by the?FCC or your state public utilities regulatory agency. Examples are 900 call charges, MemoryCall? usage and service charges.

Presumably that's talking about something else.

trevord wrote on Mar 15^th, 2006 at 8:00pm:

I know the details will depend on the plan and provider, but as a general rule, are calls FROM cellphones the same price or more expensive compared to calls from landlines in the US? If more expensive, what about calls from cellphones to PRS numbers?

Again, I can answer by example. My cellular provider, which in my case is Cingular GSM, but others are similar, charges $60 per month for 500 minutes anywhere within the US and unlimited night (after 9pm) and weekend calls to anywhere in the US. This is shared across two handsets (me and the Mrs), and I can use the service anywhere where there is coverage (known as domestic roaming). Billing is in one-minute intervals. Calls to voicemail incur airtime. Incoming calls are charged at the same rate as outgoing. Unused minutes are rolled over. Unfortunately there are lots of taxes to add on, especially in FL, so my monthly bill is around $79 which includes 9.6k data access.

Many people here have dispensed with a landline as the costs from a cellphone are reasonable and there is no need to worry about what is long distance. Some plans do not allow roaming and there is a large range of options and plans, just as in the UK. Unfortunately a lot of calls are dropped due to capacity reasons, esp after 9pm!

I would never call a 900 number from a landline let alone a cell phone, so I have no idea whether any additional charge is made. As I stated earlier, call charges to PRS are set by the provider with the phone company usually acting as a billing and collecting agent. 900 numbers really are uncommon for general day-to-day activities.

trevord wrote on Mar 15^th, 2006 at 8:07pm:

idb wrote on Mar 15th, 2006 at 8:00pm: Consumer protection on 900 calls is very strong Yes, I inferred that from what you said before. It was this on the BellSouth site that prompted my earlier comment: Quote: Question: What are non-regulated charges? Answer: Non-regulated charges are those charges which are not controlled by the?FCC or your state public utilities regulatory agency. Examples are 900 call charges, MemoryCall? usage and service charges. Presumably that's talking about something else.

The FTC governs the activities of telephone companies, and this will include the billing and collection of 900 charges. The FTC has real power, unlike the ICSTIS cronies that seem to come from the PRS industry!

bbb_uk wrote on Mar 15^th, 2006 at 7:41pm:

I agree that our 0800/0808 range known as freephone is ok the way it is but the rest of our numbering range is completely and utterly messed up beyond comprehension in some cases!

The problem here is that 0800 and 0808 are not universally free. From mobile phones they are excluded from bundled minutes and providers such as Vodafone actually charge a premium for calling such numbers despite receiving a small payment for terminating such calls in the first place! So, it is beneficial for people to seek out geographic alternatives not only for 0870 but for 0800 as well when calling from cellphones. What a ludicrous situation yet the blithering idiots in Ofcom take no action. As far as I know, I have never had to pay for a 800 call here, from landline, payphone or mobile (although airtime charges apply from cellular). Toll-free here means what it says. In the UK, it may mean free but it may mean a surcharge. Bonkers.

Full info on 900 compliance is here:

http://www.ftc.gov/bcp/conline/pubs/buspubs/900number.htm

idb wrote on Mar 15^th, 2006 at 8:17pm:

The problem here is that 0800 and 0808 are not universally free. From mobile phones they are excluded from bundled minutes and providers such as Vodafone actually charge a premium for calling such numbers despite receiving a small payment for terminating such calls in the first place! ... Bonkers.

Agreed.  But this is not a issue with the Numbering Plan - it's an issue with the tarriffs & OfCon.

I've always thought that the issue of mobile freephone calls not being free is down to our mobile model of "Caller pays", as contrasted with the US model of "Receiver pays".  But now I realise that that's to do with calls TO mobiles, not calls FROM mobiles.

I'm not defending it, but I suppose the argument goes something like this: Company with freephone number agrees to pay cost of calls from regular landlines; calls from mobiles cost more than calls from landlines; Freephone company will not pay extra cost of calls from mobiles, so caller has to!  But that still doesn't explain why they cannot be included in 'included minutes'.

trevord wrote on Mar 15^th, 2006 at 9:05pm:

I'm not defending it, but I suppose the argument goes something like this: Company with freephone number agrees to pay cost of calls from regular landlines; calls from mobiles cost more than calls from landlines; Freephone company will not pay extra cost of calls from mobiles, so caller has to!  But that still doesn't explain why they cannot be included in 'included minutes'.

My understanding is that the recipient of the 0800 call, ie the party that pays for the transit, does not pay any additional charge irrespective of the origin of the call, so if the recipient pays 3p per minute for inbound 0800, it will pay 3p/min regardless of the originating network used. My further understanding is that mobile providers receive a small payment for terminating so-called free calls. I will defer to someone with superior knowledge on this matter though for an authoritative answer.

idb wrote on Mar 15^th, 2006 at 8:17pm:

bbb_uk wrote on Mar 15th, 2006 at 7:41pm: I agree that our 0800/0808 range known as freephone is ok the way it is but the rest of our numbering range is completely and utterly messed up beyond comprehension in some cases! The problem here is that 0800 and 0808 are not universally free. From mobile phones they are excluded from bundled minutes and providers such as Vodafone actually charge a premium for calling such numbers despite receiving a small payment for terminating such calls in the first place! So, it is beneficial for people to seek out geographic alternatives not only for 0870 but for 0800 as well when calling from cellphones. What a ludicrous situation yet the blithering idiots in Ofcom take no action. As far as I know, I have never had to pay for a 800 call here, from landline, payphone or mobile (although airtime charges apply from cellular). Toll-free here means what it says. In the UK, it may mean free but it may mean a surcharge. Bonkers.

I agree but everyone is aware that freephone isn't free from mobiles because mobiles were forced to have a tariff announcement at the beginning of the call (before being charged) so as to warn people.  Although not ideal, it is still better than what exists now for other non-geographicals where they charge a premium but without informing us consumers of the costs beforehand.  The networks moan that they couldn't introduce such notification on other non-geographicals without it costing a fortune for them but at the same time they all ready have a similar system in operation for freephone so how hard can it be to expand on this?  I suspect probably not hard but the mobile networks obviously have no interest in informing us consumers that a 0845 call may actually cost them 35ppm to ring from their mobile network compared to around 3ppm from a BT landline.

Like I said in my previous post here, you get charged for receiving calls as well so therefore you mobile networks receive more income than the UK counterparts hence reason why we pay more for outgoing calls especially to non-geo's.  I still prefer not to pay to receive incoming calls given a choice between your system and ours.  I would like to believe that our mobile networks would lower their outgoing call charges (especially for non-geo's) if they also received income from us receiving calls on their network - ie the way the US mobile networks work now.

Trevord asked an interesting question in a previous post:-


Quote:

On a different tack, when calling a Canadian area code or another non-US (e.g. Carribean) area code from the USA, is the call charge the same as calling a long-distance USA area code?

It does depend on the provider, as I think IDB has indicated. I ditched BellSouth and went VoIP on my cable broadband, and my provider allows 'unlimited long distance and local calling minutes to anywhere in the USA and Canada' for $199.00 per year (about 9.50 pounds per month).  I should also add that is the actual price I pay - there are (currently!) no hidden taxes and charges, unlike the conventional landline providers like Bellsouth (soon to be, once again, AT&T!). You also can talk at any time - unlimited means what it says. No hidden charges after one hour like BT!

Jamaica looks like it is about 24c/min; Barbados about 18c/min and Bahamas about 8 or 9c/min. So, just because they are in the same numbering system, they are not domestic - they are still treated as "international". (For comparison, UK is 2.2c/min and Australia is 3c/min for landline calls. No one off charges per call, and calls charged by the second)

However, I should add a note of caution here. Last year, I was required to make some (lengthy) calls from my cellphone to a number that I didn't recognise terminating in Canada (my ignorance not being a native!). For various reasons, I don't subscribe to direct international service with my cellphone - it is far too costly compared to my VoIP service, and besides, I can use a calling card with the cellphone to make very cheap international calls via a local number. If I was to attempt to call a UK number directly, for example, it would be blocked. However, the Canadian calls weren't - and when I got the account, it caused a fair amount of interesting expletives when I saw them charged at $1.50 per minute! When I asked the cellphone provider why I had been "allowed" to make calls to an International destination, they replied that Canada wasn't considered an International destination for blocking purposes ....  but was for charging purposes.....!!

See - they try it on everywhere!!  ;D

idb wrote on Mar 15^th, 2006 at 6:03pm:

For local calls from my provider, they are unmetered. For calls within my area code that are outside the local charge area, calls are charged at a flat rate per call (it's either 10c, 20c or 25c, I can't recall without getting an old phone bill, and I'm not concerned about the charge). Long distance will depend upon the given LDD plan, if any.

So you may have three charging rates, as it were; local, non-local within area code and long-distance. But some numbers may be local in other areas codes.


idb wrote on Mar 15^th, 2006 at 7:23pm:

PRS call charges are set by the provider of the service and are not specifically related to the numbering. For example, a call to a technical help desk may be charged at $5 per minute, another at $3 per minute. The costs are indicated on the advert or other promotional literature. This is why you won't get a figure from Bell South or indeed anyone else as the costs vary according to the service on offer. ...

It sounds like the UK's telecommunications industry could take a leaf out of the US' book. So there's none of the nonsense here like "Other providers may vary."


idb wrote on Mar 15^th, 2006 at 8:00pm:

... 900 call charges can be removed from the bill if unpaid for 60 days. ...

What are you saying? If one doesn't pay their 900 bill then after 60 days the charges can be removed?


idb wrote on Mar 15^th, 2006 at 8:00pm:

From the FTC web site: Billing Errors and Disputes The 900 Number Rule has procedures for resolving billing disputes. [...] Your statement also must include a local or toll-free number for questions about your pay-per-call charges.

Unlike the UK where it's considered acceptable to rip the consumer off again with an 0870 or 0871 number. ::)


idb wrote on Mar 15^th, 2006 at 8:00pm:

If you find an error on your bill, follow the instructions on your statement. They will tell you who to call or write to dispute the charge. In most cases, it will be your local or long-distance telephone company, but it could be the 900 number company or an independent firm that provides billing services for that company.

So do you have two telephone companies? Why does it say "it will be your local or long-distance telephone company"?

Also, what it's saying is that you may dispute the charges with your telephone provider or with the service provider directly, depending on what it says.


idb wrote on Mar 15^th, 2006 at 8:00pm:

However, even if the 900 number charge is removed from your bill, the service provider might pursue the charge some other way, such as through a collection agency. If so, you have additional rights under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.

...and with the UK's numbering system you have to write to the 'service provider' and ask for your money back.

Bearing in mind that some of these are overseas, 'rouge' diallers and 'prize winning' scams being two examples of the worst kind, one clearly cannot hold out much hope of receiving any refund, as well as the concern that one must pass certain personal details to the service provider in order to get this refund.

Which brings me nicely onto the next question. Do you get overseas service providers operating on US premium rate numbers? And what about the rogue dialler scams, do they exist in the US?


idb wrote on Mar 15^th, 2006 at 8:17pm:

...As far as I know, I have never had to pay for a 800 call here, from landline, payphone or mobile (although airtime charges apply from cellular). Toll-free here means what it says. ...

How can a call be free and airtime charges apply? Surely that is a contradication; either it's free or not!


If all numbers within a particular area code are seven digits, why does the UK, being a smaller country, require eight digit local numbers, as is the case in London, Coventry and others? If seven digits is enough for one or more states, then doesn't that show mismanagement of the UK's telephone numbers?

Going back to the subject of 900 numbers, the fact that they cost the same from all providers means that there isn't competition between providers on premium rate call costs, unlike in the UK. However, that free competition is somewhat of an Ofcom pipedream, as the number of people who will choose their telephone package based on what 09 numbers cost are likely to be non-existant. Thus, telcos can charge pretty much what they like as they usually 'sell' packages by shouting about their geographical rates.

Ok, which country's non-geographic numbers shall we do next?

Germany, France, Ireland, Spain, Australia? Does Australia have any?

Dave wrote on Mar 16^th, 2006 at 9:02am:

If all numbers within a particular area code are seven digits, why does the UK, being a smaller country, require eight digit local numbers, as is the case in London, Coventry and others? If seven digits is enough for one or more states, then doesn't that show mismanagement of the UK's telephone numbers?

That's a fair question, and I've often thought the same.  I think there's several reasons:

There is a lot more reduncy in the UK numbering system than in the N.American one.

In the UK, the numbers are banded (or grouped) into the various number types by a prefix digit (1 & 2 = geo; 7 = mobile, etc.; 8 = 'special'; 9 = premium; etc.), whereas in the US they have simply used available area codes to specify the number types (e.g. 800 = toll-free, but there are also numerous standard area codes beginning 8; 900 = PRS, but again numerous standard area codes beginning 9).  This necessarily introduces redundancy, e.g. in the UK very little of the 8xx range is used, and none of certain other ranges.  OTOH, in my personal view (and I know others disagree) it introduces more clarity to the number type (with certain noted exceptions like 070x, 084x, 087x, etc.!).

London is a big area, and until recently there were two area codes in London (0171 & 0181) with 7 digit numbers.  I believe that large metropolitan areas in the USA (say New York) have multiple area codes (are these what they call 'overlay' codes?) and that in practice you need to dial the full 10-digit number to access another NY number, even within the same area.  So a single area code for London, I think, covers a larger number of lines than a US area code.

In most of the non-metropolitan areas of the UK, of course, local numbers are only 6 digits, with (effectively) a 3-digit area code (ignoring the 0 prefix, equivalent to the N.American 1- long-distance prefix, which they do not count as part of their number; and ignoring our 1 prefix which merely denotes a geo number).

I think we also still have a lot of redundancy within non-metropolitan local area codes for historical reasons.  For example, within my local area (01403 Horsham), most of the town numbers begin 2 and most of the out-lying village numbers begin 7 or 8 because those were originally local village exchanges with short numbers and local access codes (which had to be distinct from the town numbers); hence a local number beginning 79 still denotes my local village exchange.  I believe the N.American numbering system overall is a lot older than ours and, I guess, they have filled the gaps in more over the years, whereas the UK has adopted a different approach to systemisation & expansion by increasing number lengths and area sizes whilst retaining the basic historical numbers.

andy9 wrote on Mar 16^th, 2006 at 10:35am:

Ok, which country's non-geographic numbers shall we do next?

You choose!   :D

Dave wrote on Mar 16^th, 2006 at 9:02am:

...and with the UK's numbering system you have to write to the 'service provider' and ask for your money back.

That's nought to do with the numbering system - it's to do with the regulatory regime!
O.K. they're both done by the same regulator - but they could improve the regulatory regime without changing the numbering system!

trevord wrote on Mar 16^th, 2006 at 11:13am:

There is a lot more reduncy in the UK numbering system than in the N.American one.

At the level of full 'national' numbers, there is, yes. That is, 03 and 04 isn't used, most of 08 is unallocated and so on.

However, at local level, within certain STD codes, there is a scarcity of numbers (see pages 16 to 22 of The National Telephone Numbering Plan).

Note how those cities that changed to 011x format codes in 1995 (at the same time 1 was inserted into other area codes) still have plenty of capacity. For example, Sheffield is now 0114 and six digit local numbers were prefixed with 2. There are some 'national dialling only' numbers (of the form 0114 0 and 0114 1) and some starting 0114 3, so that leaves 5 million numbers starting 4 through to 8.

Contrast this with Coventry's eight digit numbers. They were six digit local numbers, so why weren't they moved to a five digit code with seven digit local numbers like Sheffield? Is Ofcom expecting a sudden inrush into Coventry?


trevord wrote on Mar 16^th, 2006 at 11:13am:

London is a big area, and until recently there were two area codes in London (0171 & 0181) with 7 digit numbers.  I believe that large metropolitan areas in the USA (say New York) have multiple area codes ...

I think that the solution in London with one code is better than two, even if it is a different length than others.

The other difference between the US and UK that is relevant here is the fact that mobiles use geographical numbers. So there will be many more numbers needed within each code.

Also, isn't it a contradiction in terms to have mobiles using geographical numbers? I mean, a geographical number, by definition, relates to a particular location. So do you get a number local to where you live for your mobile in the US?

Dave wrote on Mar 16^th, 2006 at 1:29pm:

trevord wrote on Mar 16th, 2006 at 11:13am: There is a lot more reduncy in the UK numbering system than in the N.American one. At the level of full 'national' numbers, there is, yes. That is, 03 and 04 isn't used, most of 08 is unallocated and so on. However, at local level, within certain STD codes, there is a scarcity of numbers (see pages 16 to 22 of The National Telephone Numbering Plan).

Agreed - I was referring to the overall scheme there, not local pockets.


Dave wrote on Mar 16^th, 2006 at 1:29pm:

Contrast this with Coventry's eight digit numbers. They were six digit local numbers, so why weren't they moved to a five digit code with seven digit local numbers like Sheffield? Is Ofcom expecting a sudden inrush into Coventry?

I wondered that!  Or maybe expanding the Coventry area to include other West Midlands areas?


Dave wrote on Mar 16^th, 2006 at 1:29pm:

I think that the solution in London with one code is better than two, even if it is a different length than others.

Agreed!


Dave wrote on Mar 16^th, 2006 at 1:29pm:

The other difference between the US and UK that is relevant here is the fact that mobiles use geographical numbers. So there will be many more numbers needed within each code.

True - hadn't thought of that aspect.


Dave wrote on Mar 16^th, 2006 at 1:29pm:

Also, isn't it a contradiction in terms to have mobiles using geographical numbers? I mean, a geographical number, by definition, relates to a particular location. So do you get a number local to where you live for your mobile in the US?

Yes - I've always thought that - and nearly said so yesterday, but thought I'd already made enough criticisms of the NANPA!  :D

Yes, I think you do get a number local to where you live - but that can be a problem if you move house to a different area code, as my brother has done.  It also affects the cost of calls both to and from the cellphone, bearing in mind they distinguish between local & long-distance rates.

Looking at it another way, as Texans like to boast, Texas is bigger than the UK, so roaming outside a state there is like roaming outside the country here - and then we pay roaming charges.

(When I lived in Jersey, at certain points on the Jersey coastline, the mobile connected to the French or Guernsey networks instead of the Jersey one, and then you had to pay roaming charges even while within your own country!)

This page explains what 'overlay' codes are.


Quote:

HOW DO GEOGRAPHIC SPLITS AND AREA CODE OVERLAYS AFFECT THE WAY LOCAL CALLS ARE MADE? With a geographic split, local calls are still made by dialing seven digits. This applies to both the area that retains the existing area code and the area that receives the new area code. All local rates remain the same. However, the FCC has required 10-digit dialing between and within area codes in the geographic area covered by an area code overlay. This means that every local call, even if it is a call to someone in the same area code as the caller, must be dialed using 10 digits. WHY IS 10-DIGIT DIALING NECESSARY WHEN AN AREA CODE OVERLAY IS IMPLEMENTED? The FCC argues that 10-digit dialing will protect competition in the overlay area. This is because a local dialing disparity would occur without 10-digit dialing. Existing telephone users likely would remain in the old area code in order to utilize seven-digit dialing, while new users receiving the overlay code would have to dial 10 digits to reach any customers in the old code. Under this scenario, phone customers would be less likely to switch to a new company if the company had to give them a telephone number with the new area code. Those customers would have to dial 10 digits much more often than an incumbent Bell company's customers. Also, all customers would be required to dial 10 digits to reach people who have new carriers when they would only have to dial seven digits for most of their other calls.

So two (or more) area codes are in operation in the same area! As a result, one cannot dial numbers without a code. This is where different length codes are better.

A search of NANPA website for overlay area codes reveals a whole host of press releases relating to the introduction of various area codes. So for those people living in those places with overlay codes, they will never dial 7 digit local numbers ever again.

Am I right in saying that in these circumstances, subscribers make a local call by dialing 10 digits (ie WITHOUT the leading 1)? In which case, there is infact spare numbering capacity which can never be used because the 1 isn't compulsory when dialing a code, unlike its 0 equivalent in the UK.

For those long distance calls, the code must be prefixed with 1. Have I got this right?

Isn't this a backward step that a so-called numbering plan ends up with a hotch-potch of unrelated codes overlapping in one area? Thus, they are not codes, but prefixes for numbers as they must be dialed as one. Surely it would make more sense if they would bite the bullet and add another digit to all local numbers.


trevord wrote on Mar 16^th, 2006 at 2:07pm:

Dave wrote on Mar 16th, 2006 at 1:29pm: Contrast this with Coventry's eight digit numbers. They were six digit local numbers, so why weren't they moved to a five digit code with seven digit local numbers like Sheffield? Is Ofcom expecting a sudden inrush into Coventry? I wondered that!  Or maybe expanding the Coventry area to include other West Midlands areas?

In a similar fashion, I have read that the 029 code (currently used for Cardiff) may be used for the whole of Wales. So is this good or bad to have 3 digit codes covering large areas such as Wales and Northern Ireland and still have others that have 5+6 numbers?


trevord wrote on Mar 16^th, 2006 at 2:07pm:

Dave wrote on Mar 16th, 2006 at 1:29pm: Also, isn't it a contradiction in terms to have mobiles using geographical numbers? I mean, a geographical number, by definition, relates to a particular location. So do you get a number local to where you live for your mobile in the US? Yes - I've always thought that - and nearly said so yesterday, but thought I'd already made enough criticisms of the NANPA!  :D Yes, I think you do get a number local to where you live - but that can be a problem if you move house to a different area code, as my brother has done.  It also affects the cost of calls both to and from the cellphone, bearing in mind they distinguish between local & long-distance rates.

But in the US the mobile networks are more like the patches on a patchwork quilt, are they not? So you may move from one part of the country and have to change providers, or is that more to do with roaming, something that you have to do when you move about the country anyway?

Dave wrote on Mar 16^th, 2006 at 1:29pm:

There are some 'national dialling only' numbers (of the form 0114 0 and 0114 1) _ The other difference between the US and UK that is relevant here is the fact that mobiles use geographical numbers. So there will be many more numbers needed within each code. Also, isn't it a contradiction in terms to have mobiles using geographical numbers? I mean, a geographical number, by definition, relates to a particular location. So do you get a number local to where you live for your mobile in the US?

No there aren't; they are masked off. Numbers that start with 0 or 1 are not allocated within exchanges - these initial numbers are for national dialling only, as you said. This is surely to avoid a call within the exchange being confused with a national number, eg neither 118xxx nor 189901 should be a local number on my exchange, nor the much loved Bedford number 012345 [67890].

I didn't think that local numbers starting in 9 were allocated either, but have used an Oxford one a few times now. Presumably these became virtually available a few years ago when local dialling codes were abolished, eg 9, 983, 992 etc.
_

It isn't a contradiction to have a local number for US mobiles. The tariffs are the same to call them, so why have any difference - in fact a local number is actually desirable, to make it cheaper (free) to call, including call diversion from home. If/when people move to a different area, they can apply for a new local number. Yes, there are national and regional cell networks, so in some cases they might need to change provider.

Dave wrote on Mar 16^th, 2006 at 2:38pm:

Quote: Under this scenario, phone customers would be less likely to switch to a new company if the company had to give them a telephone number with the new area code. Those customers would have to dial 10 digits much more often than an incumbent Bell company's customers. Also, all customers would be required to dial 10 digits to reach people who have new carriers when they would only have to dial seven digits for most of their other calls.

This tends to imply that if you change telecoms provider, you also have to change your telephone number - perhaps someone in the US can confirm whether that is true?
If so, that is at least one area where our regulator has achieved a result (of sorts) - you can change provider and keep the same 'phone number.


Dave wrote on Mar 16^th, 2006 at 2:38pm:

As a result, one cannot dial numbers without a code. This is where different length codes are better.

Agreed - and this is one of the things that makes it difficult for a visitor to know how to dial a given number from a given location in N.America.


Dave wrote on Mar 16^th, 2006 at 2:38pm:

Am I right in saying that in these circumstances, subscribers make a local call by dialing 10 digits (ie WITHOUT the leading 1)? In which case, there is infact spare numbering capacity which can never be used because the 1 isn't compulsory when dialing a code, unlike its 0 equivalent in the UK. For those long distance calls, the code must be prefixed with 1. Have I got this right?

Idb indicated earlier that you may have different local and long-distance telecoms providers.  I assume - but, again, perhaps someone in N.America could confirm - that it's the 1- prefix that sends the call via the long-distance provider.


Dave wrote on Mar 16^th, 2006 at 2:38pm:

Isn't this a backward step that a so-called numbering plan ends up with a hotch-potch of unrelated codes overlapping in one area? Thus, they are not codes, but prefixes for numbers as they must be dialed as one. Surely it would make more sense if they would bite the bullet and add another digit to all local numbers.

That's one of the reasons I was maintaining yesterday that the NANPA system is not so clear & simple as others were claiming!  :-?


Dave wrote on Mar 16^th, 2006 at 2:38pm:

In a similar fashion, I have read that the 029 code (currently used for Cardiff) may be used for the whole of Wales. So is this good or bad to have 3 digit codes covering large areas such as Wales and Northern Ireland and still have others that have 5+6 numbers?

We agreed earlier that this is good for a large metropolitan area like London.  Arguably, it's also good for a self-contained area like N.Ireland, so you don't bother with the code anywhere within that area.  For Wales, I'd be less sure - in one sense it's self-contained, but if you're nearer the English border then ... . OTOH, if you equate it to a less populated US State having a single area code, then maybe it's sensible?
At least (for most users) it doesn't now affect the cost of a call - just how many digits you have to dial: we're agreed that 10 is too many for local calls (like US overlay areas) and that 8 is OK for London, so maybe 8 is OK for any 'sensible' 'well-defined' area.


Dave wrote on Mar 16^th, 2006 at 1:29pm:

Also, isn't it a contradiction in terms to have mobiles using geographical numbers? I mean, a geographical number, by definition, relates to a particular location. So do you get a number local to where you live for your mobile in the US?

I believe so.


Dave wrote on Mar 16^th, 2006 at 2:38pm:

But in the US the mobile networks are more like the patches on a patchwork quilt, are they not? So you may move from one part of the country and have to change providers, or is that more to do with roaming, something that you have to do when you move about the country anyway?

I'm sure that some big providers are national in the US, but some maybe local.  I guess it's permanent 'roaming' if you stay with the old number at the new address, possibly with the result of having more 'long-distance' calls when calling within your new area.  So even if you stay with the same provider, you may have to change numbers - one of the advantages of our non-geo mobile numbers - our numbering plan does have some sensible bits!  :D

andy9 wrote on Mar 16^th, 2006 at 4:16pm:

Dave wrote on Mar 16th, 2006 at 1:29pm: There are some 'national dialling only' numbers (of the form 0114 0 and 0114 1) No there aren't; they are masked off. Numbers that start with 0 or 1 are not allocated within exchanges - these initial numbers are for national dialling only, as you said. This is surely to avoid a call within the exchange being confused with a national number, eg neither 118xxx nor 189901 should be a local number on my exchange, nor the much loved Bedford number 012345 [67890].

But these numbers are still allocated to some 'service' which, i guess, would otherwise be taking up space on 'normal' numbers had the national dialing only ones not been opened up.


andy9 wrote on Mar 16^th, 2006 at 4:16pm:

I didn't think that local numbers starting in 9 were allocated either, but have used an Oxford one a few times now. Presumably these became virtually available a few years ago when local dialling codes were abolished, eg 9, 983, 992 etc.

I thought that they would avoid numbers starting 9 too. But when some codes were changed in Nottingham, Bristol and Reading, local numbers were prefixed with 9, presumably because there were already local numbers beginning with every number from 2 through to 8.


andy9 wrote on Mar 16^th, 2006 at 4:16pm:

It isn't a contradiction to have a local number for US mobiles. The tariffs are the same to call them, so why have any difference - in fact a local number is actually desirable, to make it cheaper (free) to call, including call diversion from home. If/when people move to a different area, they can apply for a new local number. Yes, there are national and regional cell networks, so in some cases they might need to change provider.

I suppose that's the issue. A mobile is, by definition, not fixed. So when one moves (within one particular country) it should be reasonable to expect to keep the telephone number.


trevord wrote on Mar 16^th, 2006 at 4:58pm:

Dave wrote on Mar 16th, 2006 at 2:38pm: Quote: Under this scenario, phone customers would be less likely to switch to a new company if the company had to give them a telephone number with the new area code. Those customers would have to dial 10 digits much more often than an incumbent Bell company's customers. Also, all customers would be required to dial 10 digits to reach people who have new carriers when they would only have to dial seven digits for most of their other calls. This tends to imply that if you change telecoms provider, you also have to change your telephone number - perhaps someone in the US can confirm whether that is true?

Can you port numbers between providers in the US like you can in the UK?

Dave wrote on Mar 16^th, 2006 at 9:02am:

idb wrote on Mar 15th, 2006 at 6:03pm: For local calls from my provider, they are unmetered. For calls within my area code that are outside the local charge area, calls are charged at a flat rate per call (it's either 10c, 20c or 25c, I can't recall without getting an old phone bill, and I'm not concerned about the charge). Long distance will depend upon the given LDD plan, if any. So you may have three charging rates, as it were; local, non-local within area code and long-distance. But some numbers may be local in other areas codes.

That's correct - local (unmetered), non-local within my area code (25c flat rate per call) and long-distance (cost varies according to plan), or use other long distance provider. Local calls in some areas (not where I live) can cross area code and/or state boundaries.


idb wrote on Mar 15^th, 2006 at 7:23pm:

PRS call charges are set by the provider of the service and are not specifically related to the numbering. For example, a call to a technical help desk may be charged at $5 per minute, another at $3 per minute. The costs are indicated on the advert or other promotional literature. This is why you won't get a figure from Bell South or indeed anyone else as the costs vary according to the service on offer. ... It sounds like the UK's telecommunications industry could take a leaf out of the US' book. So there's none of the nonsense here like "Other providers may vary."

Agreed.



idb wrote on Mar 15^th, 2006 at 8:00pm:

... 900 call charges can be removed from the bill if unpaid for 60 days. What are you saying? If one doesn't pay their 900 bill then after 60 days the charges can be removed?

I'm not exactly sure what this means, but it is stated in my phone book!



idb wrote on Mar 15^th, 2006 at 8:00pm:

From the FTC web site: Billing Errors and Disputes The 900 Number Rule has procedures for resolving billing disputes. [...] Your statement also must include a local or toll-free number for questions about your pay-per-call charges. Unlike the UK where it's considered acceptable to rip the consumer off again with an 0870 or 0871 number. ::)

Yes, big difference!



idb wrote on Mar 15^th, 2006 at 8:00pm:

If you find an error on your bill, follow the instructions on your statement. They will tell you who to call or write to dispute the charge. In most cases, it will be your local or long-distance telephone company, but it could be the 900 number company or an independent firm that provides billing services for that company. So do you have two telephone companies? Why does it say "it will be your local or long-distance telephone company"? Also, what it's saying is that you may dispute the charges with your telephone provider or with the service provider directly, depending on what it says.

A customer can choose a different provider for long-distance. Personally, all my long distance calls are made either with a calling card using a local geographic number or using the cellphone, so I've never needed to use an alternative LD carrier. I believe that all consumers have a choice of LD provider (deregulation).

Dave wrote on Mar 16^th, 2006 at 9:02am:

Bearing in mind that some of these are overseas, 'rouge' diallers and 'prize winning' scams being two examples of the worst kind, one clearly cannot hold out much hope of receiving any refund, as well as the concern that one must pass certain personal details to the service provider in order to get this refund. Which brings me nicely onto the next question. Do you get overseas service providers operating on US premium rate numbers? And what about the rogue dialler scams, do they exist in the US?

I have not seen any evidence of rogue dialers - that's not to say they do not exist, but if they do, it isn't a major problem here. I do not know whether foreign SPs operate US PRS numbers - my assumption is that they do, but this could be wrong.


idb wrote on Mar 15^th, 2006 at 8:17pm:

...As far as I know, I have never had to pay for a 800 call here, from landline, payphone or mobile (although airtime charges apply from cellular). Toll-free here means what it says. How can a call be free and airtime charges apply? Surely that is a contradication; either it's free or not!

I believe this relates to the two elements that comprise a call charge - the toll charge relating to distance and the airtime charge (the charge for the time that the device is transmitting/receiving). For example unanswered calls of more than thirty seconds are charged airtime but no additional charge. With my plan, exactly what airtime means is largely irrelevant suffice to say that a call to a toll-free number is treated exactly the same ito cost as to any other local or long-distance number.


Dave wrote on Mar 16^th, 2006 at 9:02am:

If all numbers within a particular area code are seven digits, why does the UK, being a smaller country, require eight digit local numbers, as is the case in London, Coventry and others? If seven digits is enough for one or more states, then doesn't that show mismanagement of the UK's telephone numbers?

I think this may stem from the obsession with the 35 mile BT rule from past times. I vaguely recall Shetland having two codes for 20,000 residents which demonstrates the inherent waste. I like the fixed length common format 3-3-4 numbering here. Very simple!

trevord wrote on Mar 16^th, 2006 at 11:13am:

..I think we also still have a lot of redundancy within non-metropolitan local area codes for historical reasons.  For example, within my local area (01403 Horsham), most of the town numbers begin 2 and most of the out-lying village numbers begin 7 or 8 because those were originally local village exchanges with short numbers and local access codes (which had to be distinct from the town numbers); hence a local number beginning 79 still denotes my local village exchange.  I believe the N.American numbering system overall is a lot older than ours and, I guess, they have filled the gaps in more over the years, whereas the UK has adopted a different approach to systemisation & expansion by increasing number lengths and area sizes whilst retaining the basic historical numbers.

Expansion of the system is being contemplated here. You may wish to look at http://www.lincmad.com/future.html to read about industry proposals and an alternative suggestion. Also a lot of historical info relating to US numbering here: http://www.lincmad.com/index.html

Dave wrote on Mar 16^th, 2006 at 2:38pm:

So two (or more) area codes are in operation in the same area! As a result, one cannot dial numbers without a code. This is where different length codes are better. Isn't this a backward step that a so-called numbering plan ends up with a hotch-potch of unrelated codes overlapping in one area? Thus, they are not codes, but prefixes for numbers as they must be dialed as one. Surely it would make more sense if they would bite the bullet and add another digit to all local numbers.

No, the Americans manage to introduce new numbers without changing the number of every household and business in the country, which is what Ofcom do. What does it matter if people have to dial the full number?

It think it's time we moved to compulsory 11-digit dialling in the UK. With 3 or 4 digit codes, it hardly makes any difference whether you have to dial them or not. This would free up lots of additional codes in the form of the present "national dialling numbers" (with the added bonus that BT would finally have to allow access to these numbers so they can no longer be used to block access to geographical equivalents to 0870 numbers!) Hopefully this would postpone the inevitable move to 12- and then 13- digit numbers that Ofcom is most likely planning right now...

Also we have a whole generation of people growing up who've never dialled a number without an area code as they've only ever used mobiles. They probably don't know local dialling is possible. The same thing applies to VoIP users. And you only have to look at, for example, London numbers advertised as 0207 123 4567 to know that people don't dial without the area code (if they tried 123 4567 they would not get through).

Anyway, in the 21st Century, how often do people actually "dial" a number (in that they will get a sore finger if there are too many digits, or have touble remembering a long number). What they will actually do is choose the number in the address book on their phone and press the "dial" button once.


trevord wrote on Mar 16^th, 2006 at 2:07pm:

Contrast this with Coventry's eight digit numbers. They were six digit local numbers, so why weren't they moved to a five digit code with seven digit local numbers like Sheffield? Is Ofcom expecting a sudden inrush into Coventry?

Because, Coventry's number was changes at part of "The Big Number" changes, and not on "PhOneday". In the most recent round of changes, all the code changes were to 02x xxyy yyyy numbers. Had they decided Coventry needed a new code when the earlier changes were made, it would no doubt have been in the form 01xx xyy yyyy.

jrawle wrote on Mar 18^th, 2006 at 4:23pm:

No, the Americans manage to introduce new numbers without changing the number of every household and business in the country, which is what Ofcom do. What does it matter if people have to dial the full number? It think it's time we moved to compulsory 11-digit dialling in the UK. With 3 or 4 digit codes, it hardly makes any difference whether you have to dial them or not. This would free up lots of additional codes in the form of the present "national dialling numbers" (with the added bonus that BT would finally have to allow access to these numbers so they can no longer be used to block access to geographical equivalents to 0870 numbers!) Hopefully this would postpone the inevitable move to 12- and then 13- digit numbers that Ofcom is most likely planning right now...

Spot on! Whilst growth has forced changes to the NANP, with overlays and additional codes, the management of such change has been performed far better than has happened in the UK. As I stated earlier, the NANP may be far from perfect, but at least it is generally understandable, and a reasonable idea of cost can be determined prior to establishing the call. Originally, the state of FL only had one area code, 305 (which is now the code for Miami-Dade county and parts of Monroe County. Now, FL has far more codes, but the introduction of new ones has been generally painless. If I want to call a business in, say Seattle, given that business uses 'standard' numbering, I could simply call my provider and ask for a long distance call rate is I was unaware of the cost. Compare with an individual in say Sheffield calling a business with say an 0844 23 number. It appears that half of the time, even BT call center people have absolutely no idea of charge rates to NGNs. Look at the BT publication for specialized numbers which runs to (from memory) almost 50 pages!! This is why the system here is far superior to that in the UK. No NGNs of any great significance (except toll-free which meand free), mobile numbers treated exactly the same as fixed, and no nonsense about blocking certain 'national only dialing' numbers. Yes, it isn't perfect, but it works. Ofcom is responsible for the mess, but not accountable. There is no hope whilst the regulator is staffed by idiots - even respondiong to consultations is now, in my opinion, a waste of time.

Quote from IDB Posted on: 16. Mar 2006 at 23:51


Quote:

I have not seen any evidence of rogue dialers - that's not to say they do not exist, but if they do, it isn't a major problem here.

Last year, a friend called to say her computer was behaving strangely. It didn't take long to realise that she had a rouge dialer on it. She looked at her phone bill, which had arrived that morning and there was about $45.00 of calls to an unknown Austrian number. I advised to call her local provider, Bellsouth which she did. They immediately told her that she did not have to pay that component of the account. They also advised her that if there were any further charges on the next bill (as the dialer had been active until that day), they too would be waived. As it happens, there were - about $80.00 this time - and they were waived.

There was no fuss about this. No arguments. Just an extremely helpful customer service representative who managed to solve a potentially difficult and expensive situation immediately.

The computer was fixed, and my friend is now on broadband.

I would like to think that Bellsouth can do that, not only because they actually know what the words "customer service" mean, but also because, as I think idb said, the telcos here in the US are not obliged to pay these sorts of account for quite some time after they appear. This gives a customer plenty of time to query the charge. And - once that is done, the charge is at least suspended, and - as here - often removed immediately.

Now compare that to the UK where I understand BT are hounding innocent users for hundreds (thousands?) of pounds for bills caused by rouge dialers which they openly admit to being a scam..... >:(

So where is OFCOM as the "representative of the consumer" in all this? What a joke!  :-/

Now if Vodafone and T-mobile had the same attitude to customer service as Bell South, when I was conned by unsolicited reverse charge text, then I wouldn't have wasted so much time complaining.

Last year, I noticed loads of reverse charge texts on my t-mobile bill.  I queried it with them, and their final answer was that because it was on the bill, it must be paid.  I said I wasn't satisfied, and was given an address to write into to complain.  I then received a letter back saying exactly the same, that because they appear on the bill, they must be paid.

It was only after phoning again to register my disgust at their findings, I asked them what these texts were, and they admitted they could only be sent to my phone, if I was using WAP at the time of the texts.  It was clear I wasn't connected, so it must be a computer error after all.  They then waived the charges, and I pressed them for further compensation to account for my time, and postage costs, and a months free line rental was agreed.  Was an uphill struggle to get this far, and still no explaination as to how it happened, just a refund of the charges.

With Vodafone, I was sent a reverse charge text, and all Vodafone would do is say that they collect it on behalf of Zim, and if I have a complaint I must take it up with Zim (on an 0870 number!!)

I did successfully get compensation from Zim, including refund for my time, and the 0870 call, but only after plenty of complaining!!

Imagine how easy life would have been, if I had just been able to call up T-mobile, or Vodafone customer services, told them about the texts, and for them to refund immediately, or at least investigate my dispute.  Perhaps Bell South should come over here, and take over either BT, or one of the mobile networks.  If they use the American principle on customer service, instead of British, I'm sure they'll have alot of satisfied customers.

Shiggaddi wrote on Mar 18^th, 2006 at 10:36pm:

Imagine how easy life would have been, if I had just been able to call up T-mobile, or Vodafone customer services, told them about the texts, and for them to refund immediately, or at least investigate my dispute.  Perhaps Bell South should come over here, and take over either BT, or one of the mobile networks.  If they use the American principle on customer service, instead of British, I'm sure they'll have alot of satisfied customers.

It is all similar to the Continuous Charging Authorities (CCA) operated by credit card companies - you can not cancel it/them. And with these texts you have not even signed an agreement - and only have a contract with the mobile service (hah) provider.
Hello Ofcom - anybody there?

Tanllan wrote on Mar 18^th, 2006 at 11:12pm:

Shiggaddi wrote on Mar 18th, 2006 at 10:36pm: Imagine how easy life would have been, if I had just been able to call up T-mobile, or Vodafone customer services, told them about the texts, and for them to refund immediately, or at least investigate my dispute.  Perhaps Bell South should come over here, and take over either BT, or one of the mobile networks.  If they use the American principle on customer service, instead of British, I'm sure they'll have alot of satisfied customers. It is all similar to the Continuous Charging Authorities (CCA) operated by credit card companies - you can not cancel it/them. And with these texts you have not even signed an agreement - and only have a contract with the mobile service (hah) provider. Hello Ofcom - anybody there?

At least with the credit card continuous charging authority, you did sign up with them in the first place and give them your card details, even if some companies do continue to charge once you've cancelled.

If you spot a frauduelent transaction from someone you don't recognise, then you arrange a chargeback and the credit card companies usually help in the matter.

With the phone, companies can help themselves to your phone number, which is all they need to authorise payments from your mobile phone account, and although they should usually get authorisation (ie a text to their short code) they don't need it and can routinely charge numbers at random, and in the case of Zim, they rely of people not realising they've been charged, to make their profit.  However, I was able to get compensation from them, for the text, my time, and calling their 0870 complaint line!!

idb wrote on Mar 15^th, 2006 at 7:48pm:

bbb_uk wrote on Mar 15th, 2006 at 7:41pm: IDB, what is the average cost of line rental in the States for comparitive reasons to what we get charged here (£11 by BT)? I do not know the average cost within the US, but my Bell South bill, which provides unmetered local calling within the local area and 25c flat rate per call drop within the county outside of the local area, with CLI, ACR, basic voice mail and call waiting is $41 per month. Take off around $8 per month to exclude the extras (CLI etc). So, just over $120 per quarter, or 68 pounds per quarter. I have no idea of the current cost of BT basic line rental, but I believe it to be less than what I pay here. Nevertheless customer service from Bell South is excellent - you actually speak to someone who knows the area and is not situated thousands of miles away. Having been through three hurricanes, with most utility wiring exposed to the elements, they do a great job here in sunny FL.

Just received my March bill from Bell South. The charges are as follows:

Local monthly service $27.00
(includes 3-way calling, call waiting 'deluxe', call return *69 (equiv to UK 1471), caller ID name and number and anonymous call rejection)
Permits unmetered calling throughout my local call area and 25c flat rate to extended calling area within county.

Government taxes $4.55
(Federal excise tax $1.03, FL state communication tax $0.81, FL local communication tax $2.06, telecommunication access system act surcharge $0.15, emergency 911 charge $0.50)

Surcharges and other fees $7.16
(FCC authorized charge for network access $6.50, federal universal service charge $0.66)

Total local and local toll charges = $38.71

I do not use Bell South for LD, so no long-distance charges.

This is a very interesting discussion. I think there's no doubt that the US is far far better at policing premium rate numbers. A premium rate telephone number is essentially a way of transferring funds from the caller to the service provider. Credit cards and other payment methods provide protection to the consumer, but UK 084/087/09 numbers and reverse-charged premium rate SMS don't have such protection measures in place.

The other point about the way in which overlay codes mean that the code must be dialled, even for subscribers residing in that area code, I'm not so sure about. On the plus side it means equal length codes and local numbers. But to have to codes in one area seems a messy solution.

I suppose it's what you're used to. Although with more and more providers, who each want their own numbers within each STD code, it is inevitable that there will be wastage where telcos register 10,000 numbers per code. What's more, as far as conservation of numbers goes, what incentives are put to telcos? I think that this is covered in the latest numbering review consultation.

I'm unsure whether it's relevant, but I'll mention it anyway. Adding an overlay code, as in the US, will double (for a second area code) the number of numbers available. But adding an extra digit (as has been done in the UK) will, roughly speaking, increase capacity by a factor of 10. I say roughly because numbers starting 99 are presumably avoided. In the short term, the may represent an inefficiency whereas, the former has less wastage, but several unrelated codes may be necessary.

Dave wrote on Mar 26^th, 2006 at 7:49am:

... adding an extra digit (as has been done in the UK) will, roughly speaking, increase capacity by a factor of 10. I say roughly because numbers starting 99 are presumably avoided.

In the UK the factor is fractionally less than 8 - geo numbers cannot begin with 0 or 1. They can begin with 99, but not of course with 999.