smith@math.ucla.edu (Smitty) (07/31/89)
Two questions:
1. Wouldn't the present North American numbering plan work better
if there were a variable number of digits in local numbers and
area codes, so that the total number of digits remained 10? For
example, California currently has 10 area codes and may soon go to
11. Surely some of these areas have many unused exchange codes.
Wouldn't it make sense for California to have 8 digit local numbers
and a two digit area code? This would permit many of the unused
exchange codes to be used in areas where they are needed. One
might consider the first four digits as defining the exchange (this
would determine geographical location for charging purposes). Such
a numbering system would remove the need for many of us to dial
11 digits for regions just a few miles from our homes. A similar
system could be used in New York. At the same time, states like
Nebraska, Wyoming, North Dakota, Utah, etc. each tie up an area
code. Wouldn't it make sense for them to have 6 digit local numbers
and 4 digit area codes (with more than one 4 digit area code for
some states)? Mixed versions could be used in some of the other
Eastern States, if appropriate. For example, a state like New
Jersey might use two 3 digit area codes and a few four digit area
codes. All told, this could hold the total number of digits in
telephone down to 10 for years to come, instead of the soon-to-be
11.
2. Much more generally, given the availability of nation-wide data
bases (currently used, e.g., for 800 numbers) couldn't these
be extended to all numbers. If that were the case, then one's
telephone number need not be related to his or her physical
location. This is, of course, true to some extent, in cellular
telephone systems.
smitty