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").

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

Quote:

Yes.

Quote:


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! 

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.

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

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! 

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 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! 

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

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 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:

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 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:

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:

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:

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!