OK, there is a *LOT* of misinformation in this thread which needs some clearing up.
I'll state right off the bat that I'm in favour of the current 587 distributed overlay plan. I'll also state that I'm no fan of Telus - see my website
http://www.telussucks.info for more.
Let's see... where should I begin?
OK, let's start with the "ambiguity argument": the notion that it becomes impossible to know whether a call you're about to place is local or LD because 587 will cover the entire province.
As has been pointed out before, this was also true prior to 1998 and is still true in places like Saskatchewan and Manitoba, where a single area code covers the entire province. It wasn't an issue then, why is it an issue now? Even today, 403 means "somewhere in southern Alberta" and 780 means "somewhere in northern Alberta" but doesn't tell you if it's close enough to be considered local. Area codes were never envisioned to give you that type of information and RARELY do, except in cases of extremely high population density, ie: 416 & 647 in Toronto, 404/770/678 in Atlanta, and so forth.
I think, though, that there's a basic misconception about how 587 numbers are to be assigned that has led to this argument being made.
Someone has mentioned that you could get a 587 number in Edmonton, then move to Calgary and take that number with you. This is false and it comes from a misunderstanding of how a distributed overlay works.
Let's say you live in Bowness, and your phone number starts with 288 - or rather, 403-288. If you decide to move anywhere else within the Calgary ratecentre, you can take that number with you - this is what's called "Local Number Portability". But you *MUST* stay in the Calgary ratecentre to do this. If you move to Airdrie or Edmonton, tough beans: it's time for a new number.
Now, let's fast forward a year. Same situation: you live in Bowness, but instead of a 403-288 number, you have a 587-610 number (587-610 has already been assigned to the Bowness switch). Again, you decide to move. So long as you stay in the Calgary ratecentre, that number can move with you - but *NOT* if you move to Airdrie or Edmonton. In the latter case, you may get another 587 number, but it will not start with 587-610, which "homes" to the Bowness (Calgary) switch.
587 numbers will be no more, and no less, portable than 403 or 780 numbers. To get your head around this, think of the "area code" not as an area code but rather a three-digit extension of the central office code (or the traditional first three digits of a 7-digit telephone number). Instead of thinking of that Bowness number as "288", think of it as "403-288".
And that brings me back to the "ambiguity argument" that I started off with: the first time you see a number starting with 587-610, you might not know where it is or whether it's local. But once you learn it's a Calgary number, you can rest assured that *EVERY* other 587-610 number is also a Calgary number - there is no ambiguity.
Someone else, in talking about the justification (or lack thereof) of long distance rates, said something to the effect that if you're in Lethbridge and you make a call to the other side of Lethbridge, that call will likely route through Calgary but still be billed locally. That's *RARELY* true and certainly is not the telco's preferred routing method. Each switch in Lethbridge is connected to every other Lethbridge switch by a tandem and routing to Calgary would usually only occur if there is a problem with that tandem (and a shorter route cannot be found). Not sure where this came from. This *MAY* happen more frequently with some of the CLEC phone operators (ie: non-Telus, in Alberta) because of a lack of facilities, but it's still "not the norm".
I've seen several proposals that we further split 403 and 780. One proposal called for 403 to shrink to "just Calgary" and 780 to "just Edmonton", with 587 then being forced upon the rural customers either in the entire province, or in just one half of the province (with another new area code used for the other half).
This is utterly ludicrous.
OK, let's start with the sheer selfishness of the proposal(s). I've noticed that every single time I've seen someone argue in favour of a split, as opposed to an overlay, they *ALWAYS* propose that the portion of the area code IN WHICH THEY LIVE keeps the old code, while the poor buggers on the other side of the boundary are the ones who get saddled with the new area code (and get to reprint their stationery, repaint their signs, reprogram their cellphones, and so on). Why aren't you arguing that Calgary switch to 587 while the rest of southern Alberta keeps 403?
But leaving that aside, the proposal is ludicrous on a far more fundamental level: such a plan would gain us *ONLY* about 3 to 6 years before we'd be right back to where we started: running out of phone numbers in Calgary and Edmonton (while the rural areas would have a supply of phone numbers large enough to last about a century).
If you shrink 403 to include only Calgary and its extended calling area, you reclaim *ONLY* about 140 central office codes. We'll burn through those in about 3-4 years. *ALL* of the other 403 codes are in Calgary and surrounding area - that's where the growth is happening, not in Coutts or Beiseker or Coronation.
If you go further and shrink 403 to *JUST* the Calgary ratecentre, you net another 40 or so central office codes, good for another 1-2 years. Plus, you then get the fun situation where all the local-to-Calgary numbers outside of Calgary (Airdrie, Okotoks, etc.) are in a different area code, and thus we wind up with a bizarre hodge-podge of 7-digit dialing and 10-digit dialing depending on where you're calling. This will cause far more customer confusion than the 587 overlay plan does, and for little net benefit. And, when 403 runs out again, what do we do? Split Calgary down the middle, using Centre Street and Macleod Trail as the boundary? That brings us mandatory 10-digit dialing as well and seriously upsets everyone on the "wrong" side of the boundary who, again, has to change stationery, reprogram cell phones, and the like. Why not just leave everyone's phone numbers the heck ALONE?
While the numbers are slightly different up north, the situation generally is the same: shrinking 780 to Edmonton-and-area, or Edmonton alone, doesn't stave this problem off for very long.
One person mentioned that it would have been better for each of the existing area codes to get their own separate area code overlays. This was, in fact, an idea given very serious consideration - the proposal was to overlay 780 with 587, and 403 with 825. They opted instead to go with the distributed overlay, using 587 over the entire province and keeping 825 in reserve for the next overlay, probably due in about 10 years.
Why? Because it's part of an overall North-America-wide plan to make more efficient use of area codes - they'd like to stave off the eventual depletion of available area codes (currently projected in 2030) for as long as possible. Distributing overlays over entire provinces and states makes far more effective and efficient use of those area codes and all of us on this continent benefit. Indeed, the most efficient use possible would be to overlay the entire continent with new area codes each time we run out, but people still want area codes to indicate smaller geographic areas, so we compromise.
As for when we do run out of area codes, some here have mentioned that we'll move to 13-digit dialing. This isn't actually correct, unless you count the leading "1" that you dial on long-distance calls. Current proposals call for adding either 1 or 2 digits to existing numbers to facilitate expansion of the current numbering plan, bringing us from 10-digit numbers to either 11 or 12. There's about half a dozen competing plans, each with its own strengths and weaknesses: none has been formally adopted as of yet.
At least one person remarked that you can program your cellphone contacts as 10-digit numbers, and that if you call a 10-digit number that happens to be a long distance number, a recording comes on telling you that this call will be charged as long distance and then your call goes through. This does indeed work with some carriers (Bell, for example), but *NOT* all of them. Virgin Mobile, which operates on the Bell network, prohibits this: your 10-digit call will *NOT* go through if it's long distance. Personally, I program all my numbers as 11-digits with the leading "1" - all calls go through no matter where the called-party is or where I am.
Finally, as to whether or not calls within an area code, or a province, should be "local" and not long distance, well, this isn't germane to this argument at all. Long-distance versus local calling boundaries has absolutely nothing to do with area code boundaries - just ask the good folks up in Lloydminster. It's an entirely different debate - and probably a good one to have. It just doesn't have anything to do with this overlay discussion. I'll add this: if you want all your calls within North America to be considered "local", simply sign up with Shaw's Home Phone service. There's competition in the local phone service marketplace: vote with your wallet.
I hope this has cleared up some of the confusion and misconceptions about the new 587 area code. If not, feel free to respond here, and/or visit:
http://www.dial10.ca
<-----Check the Badge bitches. You want some Awesome, you come to me!
