Can anyone tell me whether the NAMP has been expanded to include phone
>numbers such as 1-847-1XX-XXXX, or another reason why such a number would
>appear as a calling/called party's number.
>
>I thought that the 4th digit always had to be 2-9, so was surprised to see
>the above number in my cousin's cell phone's call list when I looked up the
>details of another call. My cousin has an AT&T quad band cell phone that is
>based in the 847 area code.
>
>Liron
Per
formatting link
area codes 847 and 224 are overlayed on each other. Therefore, for local calls, people must dial a 10 or 11 digit number. Dialing the last 7 digits won't work. So the telco switching system won't be confused by an 1XX office code.
The 1XX/0XX format of office codes in ten-digit NANP numbers are still _NOT_ assignable for actual "POTS" numbers dialable by customers. Not even in overlay areas where ten-digit dialing is mandatory. Not even within 800, 888, 877, 866, 900, 500, etc. "special area codes" where ten-digit dialing to such numbers is also mandatory.
_IF_ the NANP ever expands the 'D' position digit of a ten-digit NANP number (ABC-DEF-GHIJ) to include 0 or 1 for customer-dialable "POTS" numbers, it will be a _LONG_ time from now!
1XX/0XX codes in the office code part of a ten-digit NANP number (as well as in the "area code" part of the ten-digit NANP number) have been used for decades for _INTERNAL TELEPHONE COMPANY_ functions, both routing/network/control actions, as well as special billing functions (i.e., special calling cards not associated with a real "POTS" telephone number). Customers are NOT supposed to be able to "dial" such 0XX/1XX office codes (or "area" codes) on a regular telephone loop (of course, a blue box in the 1960s/70s era could be used to reach such codes). Only telephone operators and test-men are supposed to be able to "dial" such codes. Such special internal use of 0XX and
1XX codes would have to be cleared before any such codes could be assigned for "POTS" numbers dialable by customers. And there might even have to be replacement of existing switch hardware (not just software) to allow customer-dialing to such numbers. Some of the blocking of customer dialing of 0XX and 1XX codes is hard-wired in the switch! Such switches would STILL be "confused" by a customer trying to dial such codes even in an overlay/mandatory ten-digit dialing situation until there were major changes in telco industry policy as well as network operations!
There HAD been some situations in the past where a local switch was erroneously porgrammed or wired which actually allowed customers to "dial" 0XX/1XX tyoe numbers without having to "blue box", but when telco found out about such inadvertent loopholes, they would eventually be closed up.
In the case of special calling cards and other billing functions, the customer CAN key NXX+0/1XX+xxxx plus a four-digit "PIN" when placing a (toll) call via TSPS/TOPS/OSPS and billed to such a call, all keyed by the customer without having operator intervention, but that is NOT "dialing a destnation number", but rather keying a 14-digit card/billing number.
In the original posted question, it was mentioned that:
"[I] was surprised to see the above number in my cousin's cell phone's call list when I looked up the details of another call."
which I take it to mean a ten-digit number keyed as an outbound call, which would still be preserved in the call-history list (until overwritten or manually deleted), and which would have been a mis-dial...
OR this could have been an incoming call's caller-ID to that cellphone (or even a landline), would have been some sleazy telemarketer/ telespammer, who SPOOFED a number of the form NPA+0/1XX-xxxx. These days, with Caller-ID spoofing, PBXes, VoIP, telemarketers, etc. just about "anything" can be sent out as bogus caller-ID.
But for the present time, _NO_ customer-dialable "POTS" numbers with
0XX/1XX codes in the area code or office code part of the ten-digit NANP number are permitted AT ALL, not in overlay/ten-digit regions, nor within 800, 888, 877, 866, 900, 500, etc.
Exactly. And if you click on "search-->area code/prefix" and enter
847-123, you'll find that it doesn't exist. Instead, you'll get "Error: NXX must be between 200 and 999", thus confirming Bellanga's explanation.
This topic has been discussed here before. Back in 1999 or thereabouts, moderator Pat Townson wrote, in response to a question:
That last sentence says it all!
At one point, even the FCC was considering possible use of "1" and "0" in the D-digit position. See Notice of Proposed Rulemaking "In the Matter of Numbering Resource Optimization, CC Docket No. 99-200..." at paragraph 123.
formatting link
down to paragraph 123 or search on "123.", including the period.
Neal McLain
***** Moderator's Note *****
It's been a long time since I took the D-18 course, but here's what I remember:
121 Inward Operator
131 Directory Assistance
141 Rate and Route
161 Toll Test Board
... and there were others that I've forgotten.
The point is that I'm not sure there are enough "internal" codes available and assignable to make much of a difference.
Cabling-Design.com Forums website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.