Why maintain the NANP?

Why maintain the NANP?
NewsGroups | Search | Tools
User Password
Register Now! Lost Password?
 comp.dcom.telecom.tech  Post an article  get this group's latest topics as an RSS feed add this group's latest topics to your My MSN content add this group's latest topics to your My Yahoo content  add this group's latest topics to your Google content  YahooMyWeb Yahoo!  Google Google  Windows Live Favorites Windows Live  del.icio.us del.icio.us  digg digg  Add to Netscape Netscape
Subject Author Date
Why maintain the NANP? H. Peter Anvin 11-30-2007
Posted by H. Peter Anvin on November 30, 2007, 4:18 pm
If you were  Registered and logged in, you could reply and use other advanced thread options
Given that the fixed-10-digit format of the NANP is getting close enough
to running out that formats and migration plans are being discussed, it
does make me wonder...

Why maintain the NANP at all?

All proposals I've seen seem to assume maintaining the NANP as a given.

However, given the number of issues it causes (unawareness of where a
call goes, massively disparate rates etc.) has any serious consideration
been given to abolishing the NANP entirely?

I would assume in such a situation that the USA and Canada would end up
with 2-digit country codes (e.g. +10 and +11) and the rest of the NANP
participants with 3-digit country codes.

I guess I'm more curious about what the motivations for maintaining the
status quo actually is. It used to be that rates etc. were tied to
numbering plans, but today there should be no technical reason to
maintain the tie.

        -hpa

Pure Networks
Posted by Linc Madison on November 30, 2007, 7:23 pm
If you were  Registered and logged in, you could reply and use other advanced thread options

> Given that the fixed-10-digit format of the NANP is getting close
> enough to running out that formats and migration plans are being
> discussed, it does make me wonder...
>
> Why maintain the NANP at all?

Mostly inertia, but also for economic reasons. There are countries that
would love to join the NANP; Guyana, for example.

> I would assume in such a situation that the USA and Canada would end
> up with 2-digit country codes (e.g. +10 and +11) and the rest of the
> NANP participants with 3-digit country codes.

They could saddle us with 3-digit codes here in the US and Canada; it
is, after all, official ITU policy that no further 2-digit codes will
be allocated.

> I guess I'm more curious about what the motivations for maintaining
> the status quo actually is. It used to be that rates etc. were tied
> to numbering plans, but today there should be no technical reason to
> maintain the tie.

From the technical standpoint, it would be an enormous expense for very
little benefit -- rather like the idea of splitting the 415 area code
again, given that 80% of all the numbers in the current 415 are in the
same rate center, SF Central. The US would gain inconsequential extra
numbering space. Canada and the others would lose the cachet of being
"1+" instead of "011+".

On the user side, it would be a tremendous benefit to know that you're
not dialing some random Caribbean island when you think you're calling
Virginia, but the rate disparities continue to drop. Also, the people
outside the US would fight you, so there would be a considerable
political/diplomatic cost involved as well.

The bottom line is that the system ain't broke enough yet to be worth
fixin'.

Posted by David Kaye on December 4, 2007, 4:12 am
If you were  Registered and logged in, you could reply and use other advanced thread options
wrote:

> From the technical standpoint, it would be an enormous expense for very
> little benefit -- rather like the idea of splitting the 415 area code
> again, given that 80% of all the numbers in the current 415 are in the
> same rate center, SF Central.

I had a simply solution some years back which I sent to the proper
authorities: Add 1 digit to the subscriber line numbers. All modern
switches can accommodate this, and it multiplies the available numbers
10-fold. Give the existing phone numbers a 0 at the end and then
switch over some Sunday morning.

But nobody listened to me.


Posted by Steven Lichter on December 4, 2007, 1:07 pm
If you were  Registered and logged in, you could reply and use other advanced thread options
David Kaye wrote:
> wrote:
>
>> From the technical standpoint, it would be an enormous expense for very
>> little benefit -- rather like the idea of splitting the 415 area code
>> again, given that 80% of all the numbers in the current 415 are in the
>> same rate center, SF Central.
>
> I had a simply solution some years back which I sent to the proper
> authorities: Add 1 digit to the subscriber line numbers. All modern
> switches can accommodate this, and it multiplies the available numbers
> 10-fold. Give the existing phone numbers a 0 at the end and then
> switch over some Sunday morning.
>
> But nobody listened to me.
>

The California Public Utilities Commission had brought that up years ago
and were told even though most switches could handle that they were told
it was not practical because there were still small switches that could
not handle the changes and would be that way for years to come, and I
believe there are still many around. Besides doing that would effect
the whole world. I know in many countries they have 4 and 4 numbers.

--
The Only Good Spammer is a Dead one!! Have you hunted one down today?
(c) 2007 I Kill Spammers, Inc. A Rot In Hell Co.

Posted by John L on November 30, 2007, 9:12 pm
If you were  Registered and logged in, you could reply and use other advanced thread options
>Why maintain the NANP at all?

Because there's considerable advantages to keeping it, and none to
breaking it up.

The unified numbering in the NANP makes it possible to use the same
equipment throughout the area, not just CO switches, but caller ID
boxes, speed-dialing phones and the like.

The US is most of the NANP, so even if they threw all the other
countries out, the phone numbers would still have to be the same
length, so it would have no advantage to the US, and considerable
disadvantage to all the other countries who'd have to invent their
own not-quite-NANP numbering system.

Also keep in mind that the death of the NANP has been considerably
exaggerated. For a short time they were introducing new area codes
like crazy due to the profusion of CLECs and the temporary requirement
that a CLEC have a full prefix in every rate center where they wanted
to offer service, even if they only used a few numbers. But now the
number of CLECs has stabilized, and LNP and thousands digit allocation
has made number allocation much more efficient.

If you look on the NANPA web site, their exhaust document says that
last year they predicted they'd run dangerously low (for a very
conservative version of dangerously low) in 2036. This year the
estimate is no sooner than 2038. It's fine to plan ahead, but 30
years in the phone business is a long time.

R's,
John


Similar ThreadsPosted
Re: Expanding the NANP? December 8, 2007, 7:23 pm
Summary of New NPA Codes (NANP) in Recent Years August 21, 2006, 4:39 am

other useful resources:
The Federal Communications Commission (FCC)
Telecommunications Industry Association
Electronic and Software Security Products and Services
International Telecommunication Union

Custom CGI Perl and PHP programming by 1-Script.com

Contact Us | Privacy Policy
The site map in XML format XML site map