The demand for telephone lines has increased drastically with the use of fax machines and the expansion of the Internet and other data transmission technologies. Thirty years ago the only families who had two telephone lines were upper middle class or better with teenagers tying up one of them. Ten years ago Manhattan had two area codes, one for people, the other for computers. Today the number of area codes is increasing rapidly, as is the tendency for two area codes to serve the same geographical area.
Patreon keeps this site and its author alive. Thank you. |
But unlike Manhattan, most of us don't have such strict distinctions between voice phones and data lines. We use our telephone to reach our ISP when we want to go on line, but we chase the kids off the computer when we want to call our friends. And even those of us with multiple lines tend to use them somewhat interchangeably. As a result, overlapping area codes are problematic.
And part of the problem is that phone service in overlapping area codes is not set up to be practical. People in areas with single area codes dial seven digits to reach anyone living in the same town. People who live in dual area code towns cannot call anyone without first dialing an area code--eleven digits including the "1" for every phone call, instead of seven for local numbers, even if the call is to someone in the same area code.
And part of the problem is that overlapping area codes is only a stopgap measure of limited help. Even with the addition some time ago of the requirement that all callers dial a "1" for any long distance call, the number of area codes is dwindling. If the demand for telephone service continues to increase, another solution will be needed surprisingly soon; and the creation of overlapping area codes only complicates any such future solution.
The telephone companies want you to believe that this is the only solution, that the proliferation of telephones means the need for far more numbers, and the only way to get more numbers is to add more area codes. But there is another solution, a solution which is simple and elegant, which is less complicated to implement, which will provide far more phone numbers immediately, which will meet the phone number need for a long time to come, and which is very similar to the solution that was used when this problem arose before.
Before I tell you what it is, I'm going to admit that it's not my idea. The man who shared it with me--and the originator of the idea--has been involved in electronic communications for more than half a century, and with computer technology over a third of the century. He sent this idea to newspapers in the New York metropolitan area, and also to me--to me, because he's my father, C. B. Young, Jr. But it's the sort of brilliant idea I've come to expect of him, and I'm presenting it here in the hope that someone will be able to get the telephone companies to at least consider this better idea.
Here is the idea: Add one digit to all existing telephone exchanges.
It would be a simple matter to add a "2" to the beginning of every phone number in America. Thirty years ago, when there was still a great deal of old-style pulse-dial telephone switching equipment in use, that would have required a very expensive retrofitting of the systems. But today even rotary dial signals are processed by computer switching equipment almost everywhere, and touch-tone has become the standard; reprogramming the system to look for eight-digit instead of seven-digit local numbers might be a major undertaking, but it's a cleaner solution than changing area codes. If your phone number begins 299 or 931 or 825, it would be changed to 2299, 2931, or 2825. It would be easy to remember, it would be the same for every old phone number in your book, and it would be better than having your area code change three times in a decade.
And the number of available phone numbers in each area code immediately increases about eightfold. New numbers would begin with three, then four, then five--in most cases, the new four-digit exchanges could begin with any number from two through nine without conflicting with existing telephone system protocols. This is potentially eight thousand new exchanges per area code, eight million additional phone numbers in each area. Compare this to overlapping area codes which, for all the headaches they bring, only double the number of available phone numbers, allowing only one thousand new exchanges, and some of them unavailable for public use because of long-standing telephone system rules (like, you've never really known anyone with the exchange "555", because that exchange is for phone company services).
As I said, simple but elegant. It's not the only solution. There are ways to increase the number of available numbers more by adding a digit in another position. But this is better than what's being done now, and easier to implement and more user-friendly than most of the other options.
Why aren't the phone companies going to implement this? Who knows? They haven't said they won't; they haven't said they're even aware of the option. They haven't told the public what they intend to do. Perhaps they have a long-term plan to have everyone dialing fourteen-digit numbers any time we pick up a phone. Perhaps telephone deregulation has so fragmented telephone service that no one knows who would be able to make such a change. We can only wish that someone somewhere is giving the matter some thought, and will take note that there are ways to solve the problem which are long term.
If you know who that is, please let them know there's a better idea out here.