Welcome, Guest. Please Login or Register
SAYNOTO0870.COM

<---- Back to main website

 
Home Help Search Login Register

Pages: 1 2 3 ... 5
Send Topic Print
USA -  Non-Geographic codes (Read 74,886 times)
kk
Senior Member
****
Offline



Posts: 354
Gender: male
USA -  Non-Geographic codes
Mar 24th, 2005 at 11:31am
 
Another post prompted me to look up the “special” USA telephone codes.

All based on (001) XXX -YYY-ZZZZ

Source:  http://freespace.virgin.net/john.cletheroe/usa_can/phone/intro.htm

It looks an though the USA did not fall into the UK trap of clandestine revenue sharing. On the face of it, this looks like the model we should aim for here; that is, all special rate calls confined to one range - 09 (in the UK).

Looking at the XXX part only:

555 There are no operational 555 numbers. This area code is used for fictional telephone numbers in films and television programmes.

800 Toll-free.
877 Toll-free.
888 Toll-free.

900 Special rate calls, ranging from low rate calls to extremely high rate calls. You should hear a recording explaining what the charge will be when you call one of these numbers.

911 Emergency services (equivalent to Britain's "999").

Back to top
« Last Edit: Apr 1st, 2005 at 9:01pm by kk »  

KK
 
IP Logged
 
mikeinnc
Full Member
***
Offline


Ofcom - quis custodiet
ipsos custodes?

Posts: 225
Perth Western Australia
Gender: male
Re: USA special rate telephone codes
Reply #1 - Mar 24th, 2005 at 2:44pm
 
"It looks an though the USA did not fall into the UK trap of clandestine revenue sharing. On the face of it, this looks like the model we should aim for here; that is, all special rate calls confined to one range - 09 (in the UK)."

You are absolutely correct in that assumption! From the same web site you quoted:

"Use of toll-free numbers is far more widespread in the USA and Canada than in the UK. Almost all companies and organisations use toll-free numbers for receiving enquiries from the general public. Certainly no company or organisation in the USA or Canada would even begin to consider using a high cost number such as the UK's dreaded 0891 (or 0870/0845 - my comment) numbers."

As an example, I subscribe to a number of UK magazines as well as a number of US magazines. In the UK magazines, by far the majority of phone numbers - probably at least 80% - are 0870 with a very few 0845. In the US magazine, it is extremely unusual to even find a normal geographic number. Probably 98% of quoted numbers are in the 1-800 toll free range!

What does that tell you about customer service? US companies actually want to form a positive relationship with their customers! UK companies appear to do everything in their power to p*** their customers (and potential customers!) off .....  Wink

Of course, there are even other differences. In the US, I pay a monthly line charge of $14.55. On top of that, there is a FCC 'Network Access Charge' of $6.30. Service charges, unregulated charges such as 'Emergency 911 Charge' and 'Telecommunications Relay Service', and Federal and State taxes are added to give a total 'basic' line rental cost of about $24.50 per month (about 13 pounds). Remember, for that price ALL local calls are included - and untimed -, and since most all calls to companies, even on the other side of the country, are 1-800 calls, they are included as well. Also, calls to mobile phones in the same numbering range are counted as local calls, so a call to a number in my calling zone is always included in that basic cost - land line or mobile.

Friends here that I have spoken to about the 0870 / 0845 scam in the UK are amazed! (I think the term 'gobsmacked' is probably more suitable  Smiley ). Comments such as 'There would be blood on the streets if they tried that here!' and 'Why do the Brits put up with it?' are some of the milder responses!

Even the response here to other scams seems to be far more in the consumer's favour. A friend was recently caught by Internet diallers on her computer. Two charges totalling some $60.00 to an unknown Austrian number were on her account. Without any hesitation, BellSouth told her to disregard the charges, and they would be deleted. I wonder what BT's attitude would have been?  ???

Hope this helps to put some of the issues into perspective - and just make you more determined to get an equitable solution to this continuing scam!

Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
kk
Senior Member
****
Offline



Posts: 354
Gender: male
Re: USA -  Non-Geographic codes
Reply #2 - Mar 24th, 2005 at 5:40pm
 
Hi Mike

Thanks for all the information; it is interesting to compare the two systems, and helps to highlights the scams that have been allowed to proliferate in the UK.    

KK
Back to top
 

KK
 
IP Logged
 
Dave
Global Moderator
*****
Offline



Posts: 9,902
Yorkshire
Gender: male
Re: USA special rate telephone codes
Reply #3 - Mar 24th, 2005 at 5:55pm
 
Quote:
... Remember, for that price ALL local calls are included - and untimed -, and since most all calls to companies, even on the other side of the country, are 1-800 calls, they are included as well. Also, calls to mobile phones in the same numbering range are counted as local calls, so a call to a number in my calling zone is always included in that basic cost - land line or mobile.

The main difference between the UK and US is that the UK is a lot smaller. With inclusive call packages (where all calls are free) there is no advantage of dialing a freephone number. The only time it is advantageous is in the small numbers of cases when calling non-mainland destinations.

In the US, toll-free numbers are to allow people to call the company for free from a long distance, or that's the way I understand it from reading kk's link.

Thus, in the UK if we all move over to inclusive packages, there will be no point in freephone numbers as calls are 'free' anyway.

As for mobile calls, am I right in saying that in the US the receiving party has to pay (per minute?) to receive calls?
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
Tanllan
Supreme Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 797
Gender: male
Re: USA special rate telephone codes
Reply #4 - Mar 24th, 2005 at 6:02pm
 
Quote:
As for mobile calls, am I right in saying that in the US the receiving party has to pay (per minute?) to receive calls?

Yes.
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
mikeinnc
Full Member
***
Offline


Ofcom - quis custodiet
ipsos custodes?

Posts: 225
Perth Western Australia
Gender: male
Re: USA -  Non-Geographic codes
Reply #5 - Mar 24th, 2005 at 11:19pm
 
Quote:
As for mobile calls, am I right in saying that in the US the receiving party has to pay (per minute?) to receive calls?


That ought to be a qualified 'Yes' from Tanllan.

There are an increasing number of packages where you do not have to pay for calls from other callers on the same provider network. In addition, the use of free unlimited 'walkie-talkie' mobile calls are common with some providers here. Many plans have 'unlimited' minutes - incoming and outgoing - out of business hours. My plan provides unlimited incoming and outgoing minutes at ANY time (ie 24/7) as long as I am on my provider's network. If I roam outside my "home" area (which is, I can assure you, pretty big - most of the east coast),  then - yes, I have limitations. 1000 mins of 'out-of-network' minutes per month. This costs $72.00 per month - about £38.50.

And, best of all, no revenue sharing numbers  Grin
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
mikeinnc
Full Member
***
Offline


Ofcom - quis custodiet
ipsos custodes?

Posts: 225
Perth Western Australia
Gender: male
Re: USA -  Non-Geographic codes
Reply #6 - Mar 24th, 2005 at 11:46pm
 
Quote:
The main difference between the UK and US is that the UK is a lot smaller. With inclusive call packages (where all calls are free) there is no advantage of dialing a freephone number. The only time it is advantageous is in the small numbers of cases when calling non-mainland destinations.

In the US, toll-free numbers are to allow people to call the company for free from a long distance, or that's the way I understand it from reading kk's link.


Dave, I think the whole concept of call pricing based on distance is long since dead and buried. Long distance calls here in the US cost a fixed price per minute, no matter if you are dialling intra-state or inter-state. This is exactly the same as in the UK, of course. The difference is that you generally have to use a 'long distance provider' who may or may not be the same as your local provider! That's a result of the break up of Ma Bell (ATT) many years ago, and the almost frenetic insistence on competition.

After all, as I think we now all realise, it doesn't cost any more to send a call from one town to the next, or from North Carolina to California (and if your US geography is a bit rusty, that IS a long way!  Smiley ) You can also have an inclusive package here - they run about $40.00 per month and, like the UK, include all calls within most of the North American numbering system (USA and Canada)

In addition, since we do, in effect pay an 'inclusive' price for local calls, the advantage of a toll-free (1-800) number is that is "included" in that inclusive cost. I agree that in the UK where inclusive packages include calls to any UK geographic number, there is little point in having a toll-free number IF you are making the call from the number in that package. However, a toll-free call is just that - it is free from ANY phone, regardless of the package you are on (and I understand many subscribers in the UK still have pay-per-call packages?).  I would also argue that it shows a potential or returning customer that 'Hey, I care about you! I WANT your business and I'm prepared to pay for it!'

As opposed to - 'If you want to do business with me, boy, am I going to make you pay for it.......' aka 0870!  Grin
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
jt0757
Newbie
*
Offline



Posts: 1
Re: USA -  Non-Geographic codes
Reply #7 - Apr 1st, 2005 at 8:21am
 
Just a quick point


1 for Toll Free as the service is known there are 1 800 and 1 888 numbers the latter being the secod code available as 800 isnt exhausted but the ones where the enxt seven digits can make a word like 1 800 Airways which BA use in America havemostly been used so notw that 1 888 is also toll free

2  Regarding 555 these are not fictious but they are non assigned numbers within a non geographic code, The phone companies use 555 for internal stuff BUT -and this can be useful the format dialing 555 1212 after any US area code connects you to directory assistance for that area much cheaper than using the BT international directory service. So Manhattan Directory assistance is 1 212 555 1212

3 And this is in the trivial pursuits realm US numbers used to be systematically allocated until places like New York City ran out of 1 212 numbers. The rationale for allocating them was fascinating. Back in the days when phones had dials that spun around it took longer-about 1 second to dial a nine or zero than a one. As you were using the phone companies time  as soonas you got dial tone the old and mighty AT&T made sure that each call took the shortest possible time -their time-to dial,  So as New York city got 212 ( area codes could not start with or end with 1 ) and Alaska which got the least got 909. Replaces anorak on hook and resumes life


Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
Tanllan
Supreme Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 797
Gender: male
Re: USA -  Non-Geographic codes
Reply #8 - Apr 1st, 2005 at 10:55am
 
Trivial pursuit 3b
and, of course, area codes only had a 1 or a 0 as the second digit whilst local office (exchange) codes never had a 1 or a 0 as the second digit so that the kit could see whether or not is was a local or own switch call.
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
kk
Senior Member
****
Offline



Posts: 354
Gender: male
Re: USA -  Non-Geographic codes
Reply #9 - Apr 1st, 2005 at 9:25pm
 
Hi jt0757

Many thanks for the information. It is interesting to see how others have approached telephone numbering.  In the USA it appears that the revenue sharing numbers have been kept to one classification - 900.

I have amended my post to make it clear that I was referring to the first part of the code - the XXX part.
Back to top
 

KK
 
IP Logged
 
trevord
Full Member
***
Offline



Posts: 248
West Sussex, UK
Gender: male
Re: USA -  Non-Geographic codes
Reply #10 - Mar 13th, 2006 at 6:28pm
 
mikeinnc wrote on Mar 2nd, 2006 at 6:33pm:
The North American system is simple to understand. ...
Clear. Simple. Unambiguous.

I can't agree - it may be simple in some ways, but not when you come to dial a number.  I find it almost impossible to know how to dial a given number:
  • Is it a long-distance call or not?  Do I have to prefix it with "1"?  Undecided
  • Even if the number I'm dialling has the same area code as the number I'm calling from, sometimes I have to omit the area code and sometimes I have to include it - how do I know which?  And then, do I also add a "1" or don't I?  Undecided
  • Sometimes even if it's a different area code, it can still be a local call, so I musn't add the "1".  Embarrassed
  • Some areas (if I understand correctly) you always have to include the area code, e.g. some New York / New Jersey areas.  Undecided
  • OK, sometimes you get a recorded message telling you you've dialled it wrong, but if they can do that, why can't they just connect it anyway?  Huh
  • And the long-distance prefix seems to vary sometimes, e.g. if you're calling from a hotel or payphone.  Sad
In the UK, at least you can dial the number as written - no wondering what to dial.
You can omit the area code if you're dialling from the same geographic area, but it doesn't matter if you include it - it's intelligent enough to work out what you want!

And it can be helpful to know whether you're calling a landline or a mobile (sorry - a cell-phone), whereas in N.America you can't tell!

I don't like using the N.American system!  Cry
Back to top
« Last Edit: Mar 13th, 2006 at 6:32pm by trevord »  
 
IP Logged
 
trevord
Full Member
***
Offline



Posts: 248
West Sussex, UK
Gender: male
Re: USA -  Non-Geographic codes
Reply #11 - Mar 13th, 2006 at 7:08pm
 
mikeinnc wrote on Mar 2nd, 2006 at 6:33pm:
If anyone is interested, they can look at www.nanpa.com for further details. But - be aware that the simplicity may make you weep..... Wink

I've just had a look at it - it doesn't look simple to me, with all the following types of codes:
  • NPA (Area) Codes
  • Central Office Codes
  • N11 Codes
  • Carrier Id Codes
  • 500-NXX Codes
  • 900-NXX Codes
  • 456-NXX Codes
  • 555 Line Numbers
  • ANI II Digits
  • Vertical Service Codes
  • 800-855 Line Numbers
  • overlay codes

Just as complex as the UK Numbering Plan!  Cry
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
kk
Senior Member
****
Offline



Posts: 354
Gender: male
Re: USA -  Non-Geographic codes
Reply #12 - Mar 14th, 2006 at 5:44pm
 
I agree that the North American Numbering Plan (NANP) does have its complications, but the central point made is that the American system is not “the bee’s knees” or even the “cat’s whiskers”, but that the NANP appears to offer callers a clear distinction between “normal numbers” and numbers that share revenue, ie “special rate numbers” which are confined to the “900" classification.

When you see “900",  you are alerted to the fact that the call will be at a rate quite different to what you normally pay or expect. That is the central point made.

I am not a champion of the NAMP, but wish to see that our UK telephone numbering system is clear and unambiguous.

We should take the golden opportunity offered by a review of the UK  numbering review, not to continue with the muddle we have now over 084x, 087x and 070, (or indeed make it worse!), but to make it transparent and clear.

The lack of transparency in the UK numbering system has allowed organisations to make hidden profits.   All calls that cost more than normal or are not included in the various call packages, should  be confined to a reorganised “09" class renamed  “Special Rate”.   “Special Rate” numbers should be placed into appropriate  sub-classes of 091, 092, 093 etc., with costs ranging from 1p/min to 150p/min, depending on the service offered.  

Transparency and clarity should be the aim. Transparency is a legislative requirement imposed on Ofcom, but Ofcom’s own research shows that the current numbering system confuses most people, most of the time.
Back to top
 

KK
 
IP Logged
 
mikeinnc
Full Member
***
Offline


Ofcom - quis custodiet
ipsos custodes?

Posts: 225
Perth Western Australia
Gender: male
Re: USA -  Non-Geographic codes
Reply #13 - Mar 14th, 2006 at 6:21pm
 
I am not here to try and defend the North American numbering system. I agree,
there are some idiosyncrasies in it. However, what I will claim is what I said
before. When I see a number that starts 1-9xx, I know that it will be a
special rate number. How "special" is immaterial - I just know it will cost me
more. That is what I meant by 'clear and simple'.

Incidentally, with the rapid rise in VoIP, it is now becoming usual to dial the
full number as in 1-555-123-1234 regardless of where you are dialling from. In
addition, why do I want to know if I am calling a mobile / cell phone? Remember,
here in the US, the cost of a call to the caller is the same regardless of
whether it is answered by a cell or landline phone. And - if the number is 1-800, the call
is free whether I call from my landline OR my cell phone. Sounds pretty
unambiguous to me!

I have long believed - and I think, many people who use this site agree with me
- that the 087 and 084 numbers were purposely chosen to obfuscate the fact that
they were going to cost much more than a normal call. It is far too easy for the
general public to be confused with the 0800 freecall numbers - which is exactly
what BT wanted!  Sad
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
trevord
Full Member
***
Offline



Posts: 248
West Sussex, UK
Gender: male
Re: USA -  Non-Geographic codes
Reply #14 - Mar 14th, 2006 at 10:14pm
 
I don't think we are really disagreeing with each other - but we may have a different perspective on the US system - familiarity with any system can bring acceptance or make us overlook certain aspects!  I'm certainly not defending the current U.K. system, especially on 08x numbers, but I don't see that the N.American system is any better - nor any clearer or simpler!  Cheesy

mikeinnc wrote on Mar 14th, 2006 at 6:21pm:
However, what I will claim is what I said before. When I see a number that starts 1-9xx, I know that it will be a special rate number. How "special" is immaterial - I just know it will cost me more. That is what I meant by 'clear and simple'.

But, to be fair, when I see a U.K. number that starts 09xx, I know that it will be a
special rate number. How "special" is immaterial - I just know it will cost me more. That's also fairly 'clear and simple'.

mikeinnc wrote on Mar 14th, 2006 at 6:21pm:
And - if the number is 1-800, the call is free whether I call from my landline OR my cell phone. Sounds pretty unambiguous to me!

And if the UK number is 0800, the call is free from my landline. Also pretty unambiguous!
(I think the different charge from a cellphone / mobile is a red herring as regards the numbering system - all calls are different from a mobile in the UK because we have a different charging model for mobiles.  This is not related to the numbering system.)

mikeinnc wrote on Mar 14th, 2006 at 6:21pm:
087 and 084 numbers ... It is far too easy for the general public to be confused with the 0800 freecall numbers

It's no easier and no less easy than confusing other N.American 1-8xx codes with 1-800!   Undecided
If I see a N.American 1-8xx number (other than 1-800), I cannot immediately tell whether it is an area code or a toll-free number - so
I DO NOT immediately know whether I am going to be charged
, unless the literature tells me or unless I happen to remember which 1-8xx codes are toll-free and which are area codes - and which are speciall numbers like 811.

How is that really any different from U.K. 08xx numbers?  Some 08xx numbers are free, some are chargeable - in BOTH systems.  Roll Eyes

In the U.K. I DO KNOW that it cannot be a regular area code: it must be some kind of special number, whether free or 'premium'.
In the UK, I have to remember that 080x are free, 084x & 087x are 'premium'.
In the US I have to remember that 1-855, 866, 877, and potentially 88x are toll-free; and that other codes are chargeable.
Is that really any different or clearer or simpler? In fact, there are more differences to remember than in the U.K..  Undecided

mikeinnc wrote on Mar 14th, 2006 at 6:21pm:
I have long believed - and I think, many people who use this site agree with me - that the 087 and 084 numbers were purposely chosen to obfuscate the fact that they were going to cost much more than a normal call.

I know that that is why they are NOW chosen by companies - but I don't think it's fair to say that that is why they were originally chosen.  Initially, when 084x & 087x were first used, they did correspond to local and national rates, and there was little or no choice of telecoms provider or price differential between providers.

mikeinnc wrote on Mar 14th, 2006 at 6:21pm:
It is far too easy for the general public to be confused with the 0800 freecall numbers - which is exactly what BT wanted!  Sad

As I've said above, I don't think it's any different from someone confusing N.American 1-8xx area codes with 1-800 toll-free numbers.  If you know the system, you don't get confused; but strangers may get confused.

It's more an isuue of users thinking - and companies promoting - that 084x numbers still correspond to local rate and 087x to national rate.  Cry

mikeinnc wrote on Mar 14th, 2006 at 6:21pm:
Incidentally, with the rapid rise in VoIP, it is now becoming usual to dial the full number as in 1-555-123-1234 regardless of where you are dialling from.

Well in January, I was having problems knowing whether to prefix a number with the 1- and the area code, and it did make a difference to whether the number connected or not - whereas it wouldn't in the UK.

mikeinnc wrote on Mar 14th, 2006 at 6:21pm:
In addition, why do I want to know if I am calling a mobile / cell phone? Remember, here in the US, the cost of a call to the caller is the same regardless of whether it is answered by a cell or landline phone.

It's not necessarily an issue of cost.  Sometimes, it's helpful to know whether you are calling an office, where you might be able to speak to someone else if the first person is not available, or calling a cellphone where you might be interrupting a meeting or someone driving.  Or you might want to know whether you are calling someone's home or their mobile.  If you've got both numbers, in the UK you can easily tell which is which, whereas in the US you can't.

I'm not trying to defend the U.K. system nor specifically knock the N.American system - I just think that both have their good and bad points, and that objectively the N.American system has just as many ambiguities and oddities as the U.K. system.  Overall, I cannot agree that it is really any clearer or simpler - just different!
Back to top
« Last Edit: Mar 14th, 2006 at 10:21pm by trevord »  
 
IP Logged
 
Pages: 1 2 3 ... 5
Send Topic Print
(Moderators: Forum Admin, Dave, DaveM, bbb_uk, CJT-80)

Website and Content © 1999-2024 SAYNOTO0870.COM. All Rights Reserved.
Written permission is required to duplicate any of the content within this site.

WARNING: This is an open forum, posts are NOT endorsed by SAYNOTO0870.COM,
please exercise due caution when acting on any info from here.


SAYNOTO0870.COM » Powered by YaBB 2.5.2!
YaBB Forum Software © 2000-2024. All Rights Reserved.


Valid RSS Valid XHTML Valid CSS Powered by Perl Source Forge