10 Digit Numbers Coming, and a new Area Code

[kermitology]

Originally Posted by Bring_Back_Shantz

I tend to agree that they're probalby charing more for it than they should.
But they are certainly using infrastructure over a longer distance so there is some case to be made that more infrastructure involved should equal a higher price.

They've got to pay for all of those microwave towers one way or another so I'm sure it's a case of big long distance fees, or higher local fees, and I know based on my calling habits, which one I'd prefer.

Well the bulk of the "long distance" signal transfer would be digital in the PSTN (Public Switched Telephone Network) and the majority use of microwave towers would be for cell phone usage and we pay for that already.

Long distance charges should go away.

[Bring_Back_Shantz]

Originally Posted by 4X4

Alright, BBS, I'm on the verge of agreeing to disagree, but I want to remind you that the reason we're bickering about this is because I suggested that all of Alberta should be local. An area code should be local. 403 to 403 should be local. If 587 is going to overlap 403, it should be local to call 587 from 403. All the time.

You're saying that it is long distance to call Lethbridge. I'm saying that in the grand scheme of the world, it isn't. If it were, it should be a different area code. The area code system is antiquated and needs to either get organized once and for all by dishing out area codes or else concede that all calls to a common area code are local.

And I'm saying that your logic is completely flawed.
Why should it be local to call within the same area code?
I'm sure all of nunavit has the same area code, but to call from one village to another could be 1000 km.
Should every settlement up there get their own area code?
Should phone companies just bite the bullet and not get paid, for long distance infrastructure?

Besides, the entity that assigns area codes and the companies that decide on long distance rates/policies aren't even the same thing.
It's not Telus that's saying 587 should be dispersed across the province, but it is them that's saying that over 100km (or whatever the rule is) is long distance.

[4X4]

Ooh look! Something shiny!

[Bring_Back_Shantz]

Originally Posted by kermitology

Well the bulk of the "long distance" signal transfer would be digital in the PSTN (Public Switched Telephone Network) and the majority use of microwave towers would be for cell phone usage and we pay for that already.

Long distance charges should go away.

Microwave or no (just used as an example of the infrastructure telephone companies use), the fact is someone had to build and pay for the infrastructure needed to connect phone calls at great distances, and long distance fees are there means of recouping those costs.

Just becasue it is a digital network doesn't really change that fact.
Wires, fiber optic cables, microwave towers, sattelites, they all cost money so someon's gotta pay.

[Bring_Back_Shantz]

Originally Posted by 4X4

Ooh look! Something shiny!

Yup, no sense looking for something logical when you can look at something shiny.

Why bother trying to understand the logistics of area codes and long distance when you can just complain instead.

[Shawnski]

Originally Posted by ken0042

The solution should have been to give Calgary its own code, Edmonton its own, and then the new code for the rest of Alberta. But somebody thought this was going to be better than making people in Northern Alberta change area codes twice in 10 years.

No, the solution would have been to implement 10 digit dialing INSTEAD of doing the NPA split in the first place.

Originally Posted by ken0042

But flash forward to Alberta in a few years. We will have to remember the entire 10 digit number, because it will no longer be an area code, because the first 3 digits will have nothing to do with the geographical area. Then a few years after that when we run out again, instead of splitting Calgary into 2 area codes based on quadrants (or something) we will get yet another area code good for all of Alberta.

NPA splits are NOT the answer.

Originally Posted by ken0042

Give cells all a new area code is a great idea; also splitting up Calgary into 2 codes now is also a great plan. Make everybody switch once and be done with it.

And NEITHER of those ideas aleviates 10 digit dialing Ken.

Originally Posted by ken0042

I guess for me it is like taking off a band-aid. I would rather one quick busrt of pain vs spending the next 20 years always slowly peeling it off.

And was it really that big of a deal when Northern Alberta switched to 780? All my suggestions would do is make everybody have to switch once in their lives, Norther Alberta would be twice. Then it would not be an issue. But as it stands, this is going to be an issue for some forever....
And the funny thing is each and every time somebody is out of pocket for this changeover, the phone company will make a profit.

10 digit dialing IS the ripping off of the bandaid. EVERY other scenario is simply peeling it off slowly and painfully. Period. End of story.

As for if it was a big deal to switch Northern Alberta over? Holy crap was it ever!! Every business required new signage, business cards, website updates, etc. Every conceivable place their phone number was listed in any database or any physical location required a change. The telcos had to pay cell phone dealers to reprogram every cell phone involved (including things like alarms systems where telemetry does require a phone number). Systems had to be designed to allow BOTH numbers to work for a period of time. It was butt ugly, and the telcos learned from massive amounts of negative customer feedback that the next NPA implementation would NOT involve a split.

What you are suggesting means doing that again.... and again... and again over time. Never solving the problem. Hell, at some point, expect 13 digit dialing!

Sorry Ken, I just don't agree with your perspective on this.

[kermitology]

Originally Posted by Bring_Back_Shantz

Microwave or no (just used as an example of the infrastructure telephone companies use), the fact is someone had to build and pay for the infrastructure needed to connect phone calls at great distances, and long distance fees are there means of recouping those costs.

Just becasue it is a digital network doesn't really change that fact.
Wires, fiber optic cables, microwave towers, sattelites, they all cost money so someon's gotta pay.

I guess I'm of the opinion that they aren't paying for the installation of that network anymore though. And in the case of say 1000km it wouldn't be any different than a local call. Still using all the same parts of the network, but you have to pay for it.

[Shawnski]

BBS, as an FYI all calls go through switches.

For example. Someone in Lethbridge calls another Lethbridge customer. Likely that the call will be routed up to the switch in Calgary, which then reroutes it down to the customer in Lethbridge.

Local call, but it took up "long distance" space.

That same Lethbridge customer calls a Calgary customer. Half the long distance "space" is used, but it is billed as long distance.

LD is a cash cow for telcos. A high percentage of LD calls only go through one switch. I would agree if a call had to be routed through a second switch that one could justify LD charges, but within the same one?

[FireFly]

Originally Posted by kermitology

I guess I'm of the opinion that they aren't paying for the installation of that network anymore though. And in the case of say 1000km it wouldn't be any different than a local call. Still using all the same parts of the network, but you have to pay for it.

But they do still install... and repair, and upgrade. Where I live the phone cables are so old I can't get TelusTV because they don't support the bandwidth. New neighbourhoods, etc...

[kermitology]

Originally Posted by FireFly

But they do still install... and repair, and upgrade. Where I live the phone cables are so old I can't get TelusTV because they don't support the bandwidth. New neighbourhoods, etc...

But that's outside of pure telephone networks isn't it?

My point being that it's a digital network, the infrastructure is paid for by the fees we already pay for the service and long distance charges are just money for execs to roll around in and shower with.

[ken0042]

Originally Posted by Shawnski

And NEITHER of those ideas aleviates 10 digit dialing Ken.

I did read the rest of your comments, and I think I may not have gotten my point across.

I am not opposed to 10 digit dialing. Calgary having 2 area codes or one- I know it was coming, I understand the reasons, and I really don't have an issue with 10 digit dialing.

It's having split area codes (780 and 403) combined with broad area codes (587) that I have an issue with; because they are no longer area codes. The whole point of an area code is to allow worldwide phone dialing, but keeping it simple in local areas. It took 10 years for 780 to fill up in Northern Alberta, with all of Alberta using this new code it will fill up in 5 years. So 10 years from now we will be using 5 area codes in Alberta; some of them with geographical boundries, some without.

Then in 20 years we have 9 area codes. Then we all have to switch to 5 digit area codes.

I'm just saying, fix it once, cause a bunch of grief, then don't have to fix it again. This all came about because 12 years ago the phone companies thought the Internet was going to make the phone obsolete. Turns out the Internet (and web enabled phones) actually helped make the phone more popular than before.

[4X4]

Originally Posted by Bring_Back_Shantz

Yup, no sense looking for something logical when you can look at something shiny.

Why bother trying to understand the logistics of area codes and long distance when you can just complain instead.

Yup, you got me. I'm merely complaining and not making any logical arguments. You're right. The system is perfect and questioning it or trying to apply logic is just complaining. Thanks, bud. Thanks for setting me straight.

Like I said, bye, I think I see something shiny. Something more interesting than your repeated defense of the telecom industry.

[Sparks]

The phone companies are going to make a killing off of accidental long distance wrong number calls. What's the length of time you need to be connected to be charged for one minute?

[kdoir345]

whats so hard about just dialing the 10 digit number first, then if it says that it is actually long distance, just do it again with a 1, seems pretty easy way to get used to things to me.....

[FireFly]

Originally Posted by kermitology

But that's outside of pure telephone networks isn't it?

My point being that it's a digital network, the infrastructure is paid for by the fees we already pay for the service and long distance charges are just money for execs to roll around in and shower with.

I'm not saying we should pay LD charges or not, I'm just saying that they do still upgrade, repair and maintain the networks.

And I'm not sure what you mean by 'pure telephone networks'...

[kermitology]

Originally Posted by FireFly

I'm not saying we should pay LD charges or not, I'm just saying that they do still upgrade, repair and maintain the networks.

And I'm not sure what you mean by 'pure telephone networks'...

I don't disagree that they don't do those things. But you're talking about TelusTV which I admittedly don't know a lot about, but would assume that it's dealing with the same communications network as Internet services.

In terms of voice communications, we're getting hosed as consumers. The bandwidth requirements are tiny compared to something like IP traffic by us logging on to CP to argue about telecommunications things.

[Shawnski]

Originally Posted by ken0042

I am not opposed to 10 digit dialing. Calgary having 2 area codes or one- I know it was coming, I understand the reasons, and I really don't have an issue with 10 digit dialing.

Again, had this been done when 780 was introduced, we wouldn't even have this thread now. But Joe Blow pushed back. It would have been far simpler for the telcos to have just overlapped a second NPA, and gone with 10 digit dialing at the time.

Originally Posted by ken0042

It's having split area codes (780 and 403) combined with broad area codes (587) that I have an issue with; because they are no longer area codes. The whole point of an area code is to allow worldwide phone dialing, but keeping it simple in local areas. It took 10 years for 780 to fill up in Northern Alberta, with all of Alberta using this new code it will fill up in 5 years. So 10 years from now we will be using 5 area codes in Alberta; some of them with geographical boundries, some without.

Then in 20 years we have 9 area codes. Then we all have to switch to 5 digit area codes.

I'm just saying, fix it once, cause a bunch of grief, then don't have to fix it again. This all came about because 12 years ago the phone companies thought the Internet was going to make the phone obsolete. Turns out the Internet (and web enabled phones) actually helped make the phone more popular than before.

780/403/587 ARE area codes. Alberta ones. I would expect with number portability that you will see people moving 780 numbers down south and people with 403 numbers moving them north. Today there is a north south split. That won't last long.

As for your last paragraph, sorry, again absolutely false. I was in the industry, and at that time we KNEW that an NPA split wouldn't get us through more than a decade or so. I recall it to be 7-8 years window before we potentially had another NPA split scenario occurring. The internet had nothing to do with this. Lastly, as for fixing it once and foreall, it... just... doesn't.... work... that... way.

I dialled 4 digits when I grew up. Times change.

[FireFly]

Originally Posted by kermitology

I don't disagree that they don't do those things. But you're talking about TelusTV which I admittedly don't know a lot about, but would assume that it's dealing with the same communications network as Internet services.

In terms of voice communications, we're getting hosed as consumers. The bandwidth requirements are tiny compared to something like IP traffic by us logging on to CP to argue about telecommunications things.

I get what you're saying now... And sort of. However, you plug your internet in to your phone line... so it's the same network, just larger bandwith. May as well just put in a thicker cable, no?

[4X4]

Originally Posted by kermitology

In terms of voice communications, we're getting hosed as consumers. The bandwidth requirements are tiny compared to something like IP traffic by us logging on to CP to argue about telecommunications things.

It almost feels like a tax on a tax when you're paying per minute and long distance.

(I'm done with you, BBS, so please don't reply to this) When you think about the way the telecom industry was originally set up, it was based on land lines and distance. There was no 'per minute' charges. You paid for your monthly service and paid extra to call long distance. Back in the day, that was necessary because a) there were physical wires that needed to be maintained and b) there was no internet to conduct long distance business over.

It just seems to me that the world got alot smaller in the last 20 years. Doing business between Calgary and Edmonton is so common, it doesn't even register on the 'how big is your company' scale.
It's totally bogus that it costs the phone company any more to connect a call between the two cities. If it did, there'd be no such thing as the stupid packages we pay for for long distance. It's just another way to hose us.

[Bring_Back_Shantz]

Originally Posted by 4X4

Yup, you got me. I'm merely complaining and not making any logical arguments. You're right. The system is perfect and questioning it or trying to apply logic is just complaining. Thanks, bud. Thanks for setting me straight.

Like I said, bye, I think I see something shiny. Something more interesting than your repeated defense of the telecom industry.

Okay, bye (or is that see you again a bit later).
It's not a defense of the telecom industry it's being annoyed by people who assume they know better than people who's job it is to make decisons like this.

Screw trying to understand why these decisions are made, let's just complain.

Is the new system perfect?
Probably not, but for the most part the problems spring from minor inconvenineces to people when it comes to remembering numbers or having to wrap their heads around having to know where they are calling.
That inconveninece compared to changing a few million phone numbers that are connected to a lot of things these days, that ALL have to be changed.

I dial a lot of 780 numbers from here in Calgary, so for me it is less of an inconveneince to know all new numbers are 587 than it is to change all of those 780 numbers, and I'm just one person that won't be burdended financially by this. What about everyone else and any company that has any sort of financial interest in keeping their number the same.

If they didn't do it this way, I'll bet you'd be complaining about how the average business man is being screwed over and forced to cover the cost of chaning that stuff.
Or better yet, what if the government put up the cash to help them pay for it, then I'm sure you'd be ready with a "My tax dollars" arguement.