© 2005, Information Disciplines, Inc., Chicago. This article may be circulated freely as long as this copyright notice is included.
In the 1960s the American telephone monopoly, AT&T, introduced
"direct distance dialing". Their scheme preserved the 7-digit
telephone numbers then in effect in most U.S. and Canadian cities by adding a 3-digit prefix
area code, such as
for the District of Columbia.
The initial set of area codes was far less logical than the ZIP codes being established at about that time by the U.S. Post Office, having no geographic sequence and a huge range of area sizes. There was, nevertheless, some sense to the scheme:
In some areas you had to dial
first. That was
common in very large areas, where many calls within the same area-code were
considered "long distance".
That scheme worked fine for a couple of decades, but eventually the most populous areas started running out of numbers to assign to new subscribers, largely due to short-sighted planning by AT&T and other telephone companies. The capacity crisis was aggravated by:
As a short-term stopgap, the telephone companies1
established a few new
area codes and split some of the most overloaded ones. The Chicago
708 and several
boroughs of New York city became
Subscribers ordered new stationery and business cards.
That approach may have minimized the telephone companies' cost of
reprogramming their switches, but they had a choice. Given that phone
numbers of the form:
|3 digits||7 digits|
|strategy||gain in capacity||number of
to be dialed
new area code
|add a digit to the
local phone number
|ten times as
The choice may seem obvious to telephone users, but no one asked our opinion at the time. I heard a rumor about one telephone company spokesperson who claimed that Americans couldn't be expected to remember 8-digit local phone numbers, while they could easily remember a few nearby area codes. That may or may not have been the phone companies' view, but experience has shown that Parisians and Londoners have no trouble at all with 8-digit phone numbers. The Americans I know are just as intelligent.
Looking back we note with regret that if America had adopted 8-digit local
of northern Illinois would still be in
and all of New York City would still be in
212 with plenty of capacity for
In any case, even that awful solution didn't last long.
Telephone companies next responded by abandoning the distinction between
area codes and exchanges. From then on, we had both local exchanges that
looked like area codes (
some new area codes that looked like local
847). Of course areas that
hadn't demanded the initial
for out-of area calls then had to start doing so.
That bought the telephone companies a few years, but was still no permanent solution.
Chicago's affluent north suburbs have had their area code changed
708 and then to
847. And now even
847 is once again exhausted!
Other populous affluent areas have experienced similar disruption.
At last, subscribers are fed up. They won't tolerate another split in their area and yet another new area code. Instead the telephone companies have come up with another solution that still preserves their ancient 7-digit programming: "overlay" areas, i.e. two area codes serving the same geographic space. Current customers in the area get to keep their present area code, while new subscribers are assigned the new one.
To avoid discriminating, the phone companies require users in such areas
to dial the
area code even when it's their own! In some of them (Manhattan), they
have to dial
Even this latest scheme is unlikely to last. Telephone companies are talking about separating the 3-digit prefixes from geography altogether and letting subscribers retain whatever code they began with even when they move across the country. So much for being able to remember a few nearby area codes.
The people of North America are now stuck with a clumsy and burdensome telephone number scheme so inflexible that further disruption is inevitable. That happened because our people, our governments, and our regulatory agencies failed to recognize the importance of taking control of a vital public function, and we passively yielded to the self-serving internal whims of a few private sector companies. It's probably too late to clean up the telephone area-code mess, but let's never again close our eyes to the impact on our daily lives of bureaucratic corporations, especially monopoly utilities.
Final(?) Instalment for Chicagoans, November 2009
This month the telephone monopoly announced that Chicago would now join the growing list of areas where every call, even to the house next door, has to include both the area code and the initial 1. The telephone monopoly announced this as "11-digit dialing" as if it were some sort of technological advance.
The newspapers and broadcasters reported the change as if it were an act of God. There was no mention of where the edict had come from. It was all stated in impersonal terms ("Callers will have to . . .") or attributed to anonymous sources ("Officials stated that . . ."). Don't mess with the telephone company!
Another "unintended consequence" is affecting many large apartment and office buildings that have no full-time doorperson or receptionist. Visitors select a tenant on an outdoor keypad, and the intercom system dials the tenant's telephone number. Hundreds of such systems in Chicago have stopped working, leading to results ranging from minor annoyance and inconvenience to severe hardship. Some of the systems require reprogramming; others require costly replacement.
"Unintended consequence" is a polite term for the stupidity and arrogance of America's telephone monopolies. One of these days someone is going to die because of them.
2 -- The additional digit could be either part of the exchange or appended to the 4-digit portion. Note that such a scheme could operate with a mixture of 7-digit and 8-digit numbers, so that areas or individual exchanges that weren't exhausted would experience no change at all.
3 -- I've tried unsuccessfully to get an explanation for the redundancy. If every domestic call you dial begins with 1, what possible purpose does that 1 serve?
Last modified June 15, 2005
Return to IDI home page.