Comments on: The number you are dialling is annoying http://ryanfeeley.com/2007/02/27/the-number-you-are-dialling-is-annoying/ Give me something I can use. Wed, 03 Dec 2008 22:34:58 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.6.2 By: ryan http://ryanfeeley.com/2007/02/27/the-number-you-are-dialling-is-annoying/#comment-34 ryan Wed, 28 Feb 2007 13:13:19 +0000 http://ryanfeeley.com/2007/02/27/the-number-you-are-dialling-is-annoying/#comment-34 <p>Thanks Rohan! Looks like comment preview never worked in this theme. Until I have time to remove the link and fiddle with affected layout, I've renamed the link to "Top of page".</p> Thanks Rohan! Looks like comment preview never worked in this theme. Until I have time to remove the link and fiddle with affected layout, I’ve renamed the link to “Top of page”.

]]> By: Rohan Jayasekera http://ryanfeeley.com/2007/02/27/the-number-you-are-dialling-is-annoying/#comment-33 Rohan Jayasekera Tue, 27 Feb 2007 21:36:27 +0000 http://ryanfeeley.com/2007/02/27/the-number-you-are-dialling-is-annoying/#comment-33 <p>1: Cellphone carriers, including Bell Mobility, do the "connect anyway" thing and I'm hoping Bell Canada will eventually copy it for landlines. (This is actually a Canadian-only problem, as in the USA a "1" does not mean "toll call" as it does here, but instead means "area code follows".)</p> <p>2: This one's complicated. But as an example, if you were in 905 (where some calls within the area code are long distance) and dialed 1-848-1234, the phone system wouldn't know whether you meant 1-(905)-848-1234, or 1-(848)-123-4xyz in New Jersey and hadn't finished dialing yet. It used to be that area codes looked different from local number prefixes, but as they started "overlaying" area codes (e.g. adding 647 to 416, and 289 to 905) they were forced to drop this distinction.</p> <p>Other countries, such as France and Australia, have adopted a solution that I wish we also had in North America: switch from 7- to 8-digit local numbers. Then the area codes could have stayed exactly as they were: the 416/905 split wouldn't have been needed, nor the 416/647 and 905/289 overlays. Instead we have a confusing mess, and instead of needing to dial 8 digits we need to dial 10.</p> <p>By the way, Ryan, the "Preview your comment" link while entering a comment does nothing but bring me back the same page, without the addition of a preview.</p> 1: Cellphone carriers, including Bell Mobility, do the “connect anyway” thing and I’m hoping Bell Canada will eventually copy it for landlines. (This is actually a Canadian-only problem, as in the USA a “1″ does not mean “toll call” as it does here, but instead means “area code follows”.)

2: This one’s complicated. But as an example, if you were in 905 (where some calls within the area code are long distance) and dialed 1-848-1234, the phone system wouldn’t know whether you meant 1-(905)-848-1234, or 1-(848)-123-4xyz in New Jersey and hadn’t finished dialing yet. It used to be that area codes looked different from local number prefixes, but as they started “overlaying” area codes (e.g. adding 647 to 416, and 289 to 905) they were forced to drop this distinction.

Other countries, such as France and Australia, have adopted a solution that I wish we also had in North America: switch from 7- to 8-digit local numbers. Then the area codes could have stayed exactly as they were: the 416/905 split wouldn’t have been needed, nor the 416/647 and 905/289 overlays. Instead we have a confusing mess, and instead of needing to dial 8 digits we need to dial 10.

By the way, Ryan, the “Preview your comment” link while entering a comment does nothing but bring me back the same page, without the addition of a preview.

]]>