On 12/2/2021 1:55 PM, Rob wrote:
> nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote:
>> In article <slrnsqiev7.1g9.nomail@xs9.xs4all.nl>, Rob
>> <nomail@example.com> wrote:
>>
>>>>>> nanp was designed to have fixed length numbers, with a 3-3-4 format,
>>>>>> which has several advantages over variable length numbers, including
>>>>>> simpler phone switches and easier to remember numbers as well as
>>>>>> knowing where they are located.
>>>>>
>>>>> No, the contrary! In your system the knowledge of where 212 is located
>>>>> brings you nothing w.r.t. the location of 213.
>>>>
>>>> no reason why it should.
>>>
>>> Because you said: knowing where they are located.
>>> With our area code, it is easy to know where they are located.
>>
>> same here.
>
> You would have to remember the entire table.

No, because very few people would ever call most of the area codes. The
ones you remember are the ones near you and the ones in highly populated
areas. Most people probably know that New York City is 212 and Los
Angeles is 213. They aren't memorizing area codes. If they really need
to know the area code they can always look it up. Pre-Internet there
were phone directories that had that information in it. It used to be a
big deal when the new phone books were delivered to your house, back
before many people had unlisted numbers (and it cost extra to not have
your number printed in the directory).

On 12/01/2021 01:11 AM, Joerg Lorenz wrote:

> Let us put it that way:
> The self-perception of the USA lacks any base.
>
> Since the last administration the world views the US at least as
> dangerous and unpredictable for this planet as the Chinese.

I'm pretty sure we're not going to attack Germany or France any time
soon. Exactly what are you afraid of?

--
Cheers, Bev
You're such a loser that if there was a contest for losers
you'd come in second.

sms wrote:

> I was surprised at what my neighbor said as well, but he did say that
> if a parking lot is open to the public, even if it's on private
> property (like a shopping center), that it's legal for the cops to
> cite vehicles parked there for expired registration or for no front
> license plate.

Likely true in your state then.

> We could probably finance a lot of new public infrastructure by
> raising the fine for no front license plate to $1000, and begin
> ticketing vehicles that don't have one. I've counted sometimes, and
> it's about 1 in 12 vehicles in my area that lack a front license
> plate.

We got rid of the front license plate in my state many years ago.

On 12/2/2021 1:52 PM, Rob wrote:
> sms <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote:
>> On 12/2/2021 10:26 AM, Rob wrote:
>>> nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote:
>>>> nanp was designed to have fixed length numbers, with a 3-3-4 format,
>>>> which has several advantages over variable length numbers, including
>>>> simpler phone switches and easier to remember numbers as well as
>>>> knowing where they are located.
>>>
>>> No, the contrary! In your system the knowledge of where 212 is located
>>> brings you nothing w.r.t. the location of 213.
>>
>> Well yes, you have to know where the area code is located, and they are
>> not contiguous.
>>
>> Since the system began in the days of rotary dial phones, the area codes
>> that were the fastest to dial went to the locations that were called the
>> most, hence New York getting 212, the fastest area code to dial. Los
>> Angeles got 213. Chicago got 312. Area codes with zero as the middle
>> digit were undesirable and went to less populated areas.
>
> There was little attention paid to that aspect here. I also wondered
> about it sometimes. Why use the 0, the most difficult to dial number,
> as the area code introducer.
>
> Short area codes in the Netherlands:
>
> 010 Rotterdam
> 020 Amsterdam
> 030 Utrecht
> 040 Eindhoven
> 050 Groningen
> 070 den Haag
>
> As can be seen, they are roughly ordered in city size/importance order,
> but the first and last digit are 0 which would better have been 1
> for maximal efficiency.
>
> 5-digit area codes are even worse, as the "central" location of the
> zone would get the 0xx00 area code, when that did not have a short
> area code (like the abovementioned large cities, and over time also
> some smaller cities that got a 0xy short dialcode with y != 0).

I'm often amazed at how chaotic and thoughtless the whole European phone
numbering system is, but remember you had 40+ countries, each creating
their own numbering scheme, with a phone number length that seemed
sufficient just for that country.

If the EU had existed back then there likely would have been a more
coherent system. Europe didn't have the advantage of a dominant monopoly
(AT&T) being able to create a system able to serve a huge area and a
huge population, with room for expansion without the need to add more
digits.

On 12/01/2021 02:49 AM, Joerg Lorenz wrote:
> Am 01.12.21 um 11:17 schrieb Rob:
>> But often this is also very useful for yourself. It like it that
>> Google builds a profile because it enhances the results of searches
>> that I do, or when selecting material that I view.
>>
>> When I open Youtube, I get greeted with videos from CuriousMarc,
>> Dave Jones, BigClive, etc. When a kid on the block opens Youtube
>> they get videos from their favorite rapper or make-up artist.
>>
>> I like that. I see what I want to see and don't see the other crap.
>> Without that, Youtube would be useless.
>>
>> Same for the search engine. When I look for TLAs Google mostly correctly
>> guesses what I want instead of coming up with meanings of the same TLA
>> in another context. It can only do that because it has gathered
>> a profile of the things I am searching.
>>
>> When they can thing they can turn that knowledge into a profit, good
>> for them! I think that will be difficult because I don't see how
>> it is useful for companies to know that I am in computer technology,
>> but when they still want to pay for that knowledge, not my problem.
>
> At one point in time you will find out that the price you paid for this
> "comfort" is completely disproportionate.

What do you envision? I see increasingly sophisticated targeting of
advertising. If someone assembles the info available about me and wants
to sell me something that I really want for the price I'd pay for it at
a yard sale (between 5 and 10 cents on the dollar usually, but sometimes
WAY less than that) let them go for it.

I don't even SEE ads any more. Yes, that's a billboard next to the
freeway. No, I have no idea what was on it. Same thing with print
media and on-line news. I block what I can, and I'm aware of the
existence of an ad-thing on the page, but I have no idea what it's for.
Apparently some people actually look at these things. Hard to believe.

> And a lot of users do not want that. Especially not against their will.

Perhaps, but as long as Microsoft can't force me to run Windows I'm OK
with what they're doing. The problem is monopolies, of course. Google
made the web USABLE and there probably isn't an acceptable substitute.
I suspect that the other search engines just reformat google searches,
but I really have no way of knowing what they actually do. I can see
google starting to charge for their services, but controlling that --
beyond just saying NO -- isn't within my power.

--
Cheers, Bev
You're such a loser that if there was a contest for losers
you'd come in second.

The Real Bev wrote:

> Perhaps, but as long as Microsoft can't force me to run Windows I'm
> OK with what they're doing.

Same with me and Google and the Chrome OS. Wait, this is a Chromebook
I'm posting with... 8-O

> I can see google starting to charge for their services,

What do you mean starting? I've been paying Google a couple bucks a
month for storage for quite awhile now.

On 12/01/2021 09:47 AM, sms wrote:

> For the original poster, "caller pays" (or "texter pays") would be
> wonderful. If she needs to make a call she could call someone, hang-up
> before they answer, and have them call her back and she would not be
> charged anything. Of course whoever is calling her would have to pay
> under such a system.

Excellent!

Back in the dark ages when my son was driving between home and Berkeley
he would stop at the halfway point (when he refilled the tank) and call
us collect. We would, of course, refuse the call. "I'm not dead yet"
calls are way better than NOT getting them. Now I use most of my
precious minutes to let my husband know that I didn't get killed skiing.

--
Cheers, Bev
You're such a loser that if there was a contest for losers
you'd come in second.

On 12/01/2021 11:53 AM, Frank Slootweg wrote:

> AFAICT, *everybody* in the US pays the called-party costs for a
> 'landline' to mobile call. The people with a contract with some bundle
> of minutes, just pay out of their bundle. That might not be of any
> concern to them, but they still pay, FSVSVO 'pay'.

I get the first 3 letters but I'm stumped by the last 3. Are two of
them typos?

> Anyway, AFAIC EOD.

Aw come on, don't quit now!

--
Cheers, Bev
You're such a loser that if there was a contest for losers
you'd come in second.

On 12/01/2021 01:17 PM, Rob wrote:
> sms <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote:
>> In the U.S., we've had ten digit numbers for many decades, so there was
>> no need to do those kludges, we had plenty of numbers. Because of how
>> switching systems are designed, the ten digit numbers consisted of a
>> three digit area code, a three digit central office prefix, and a four
>> digit suffix, with certain limitations as to what digits were
>> unavailable, most of which have since been removed.
>>
>> Also, the North American Numbering Plan covers not just the United
>> States and its territories, but also Canada, Bermuda, and seventeen
>> nations of the Caribbean.
>
> In the Netherlands we have 9-digit numbers (the total length of the
> number is 10 digits but the first digit is similar in function to the
> leading 1 digit in the US numbers, it merely introduces an area code),
> but our area is only about the size of New Hampshire.
>
> And we have had this number length for 26 years now. Before that, the
> length was variable (users in cities had a digit less).
>
>> The slight annoyance used to be when an area was split, because the
>> phone company was running out of numbers, and your area code changed.
>> Even then they gave you plenty of notice, a grace period during which it
>> was not necessary to dial the area code, and so it was not as disruptive
>> as changing the main part of the phone number. Now, they don't do area
>> code splits anymore, they do overlays.
>
> I don't understand these concepts. When your "area is split", why
> could you not keep the same area code and new subscribers get another one?

Numbers were assigned by geographic areas. When we had only 7 digits,
the first 3 indicated the geographical area -- a city or part of a city.
Numbers were originally things like HIllcrest 76540 or ATlantic 99060.
We missed the word prefixes when they were converted to numbers. We
still knew where the phone number was located, but it wasn't as friendly.

Los Angeles (City or County, not sure of the borders) was originally
213. Then the eastern half was changed to 818. Then the eastern half
of that was changed to 626. At some point The Powers That Be realized
that resellers had bought huge blocks of numbers, most of which were
unused. They thought it would be a good idea to claw those numbers back
rather than make another area-code split, but I don't know if that
actually happened. I don't think it's ever been considered to assign
mobile numbers new area codes -- some asshole thought it was
'discriminatory', like grades in school for instance :-(
....
> In the past, we had a system where a letter mailed with insufficient
> postage would be delivered to the addressee with an additional card
> attached with an amount to be paid. Nowadays, those cards are mailed
> to the sender. Better, I think. It used to be a way to nag the
> receiver when you did not like them, and that problem is now gone.
> Not much different from nagging people with calls they have to pay for.

Worse: I paid what the Post Office office asked to send an envelope to
London via air mail Two weeks later it came back to me with an
INSUFFICIENT POSTAGE notation. The entire post office heard me yelling,
and possibly even down the street. The boss sent it overnight at no
charge to me, but that was certainly inadequate -- I wanted someone's
head on a platter, not just a few words.

--
Cheers, Bev
You're such a loser that if there was a contest for losers
you'd come in second.

On 12/01/2021 03:48 PM, sms wrote:
> On 12/1/2021 1:17 PM, Rob wrote:
>>
>> Well, the disadvantage is that you (as a mobile user) have to pay
>> for calls you do not want.
>
> You do not. You see the number calling you (and the name if it's in your
> contact list). If you do not answer then you are not charged. You can
> let it go to voicemail at no charge.

That would be nice. I suspect if I just reject the call no charge
occurs, but I've seen rejected calls go to voicemail and been helpless
to prevent it and I DO get charged then.

I've thought about discontinuing voicemail service, but I'm afraid that
if I do that I might actually need it at some time in the future before
I can switch back :-(

> In the past you could retrieve your
> cellular voice mail from a landline, using a backdoor number, but not
> sure if that still works.

It does. That's how I know that the only voicemail I get is warnings
about immigration documents and auto warranties.

--
Cheers, Bev
Bluetooth is especially problematic in San Francisco because it
makes it nearly impossible to tell who is hearing voices and who
is just talking on the phone, and in this city their numbers
seem about equal. --Shaun Nichols

On 12/01/2021 03:55 PM, sms wrote:
> On 12/1/2021 3:01 PM, AJL wrote:
>> On 12/1/2021 10:47 AM, sms wrote:
>>> On 12/1/2021 8:30 AM, AJL wrote:
>>
>>> The big fear of carriers has been that high-value postpaid customers
>>> will change to lower cost prepaid plans.
>>
>> If I had one of those 'cheap' plans it would likely cost me a fortune.
>> The wife spends hours on the phone to family and friends around the
>> country, both calling from here and when we travel.

A friend uses Line. Both ends have to use it. His wife talks a lot to
relatives in Boston and Taiwan. I think it's free, but I could be wrong.

> Yes, if you had one of those pay-per-minute plans. But not many people
> do those anymore. You can get a plan with unlimited voice minutes for as
> little as $5 per month. In the U.S., if there's Wi-Fi you can call for
> free using Google Voice.

Cheapest I've ever seen is ~15/month. Who charges $5?

I'd like to be able to buy a chunk of data for a reasonable price that
would be good until I used it up. NOBODY offers that. Only time I've
ever NEEDED such a thing was when I was sent to an ambiguous address and
had to look up the actual address of the business. Oh yeah, and finding
cheap gas stations between LA and Houston. Not actually needed, of
course -- they were all Pilot!

--
Cheers, Bev
Bluetooth is especially problematic in San Francisco because it
makes it nearly impossible to tell who is hearing voices and who
is just talking on the phone, and in this city their numbers
seem about equal. --Shaun Nichols

The Real Bev wrote:

> Back in the dark ages when my son was driving between home and
> Berkeley he would stop at the halfway point (when he refilled the
> tank) and call us collect. We would, of course, refuse the call.
> "I'm not dead yet" calls are way better than NOT getting them.

My folks did kind of the same thing. When a relative returned home they
would make a long distance person-to-person call to a fictitious name at
my folk's number. When they told the operator the person wasn't there
there was no charge and the folks knew the relative got home OK.

On one occasion when the call came my mom said "I'm so glad you got home
OK" since the relative was on the circuit. I don't remember what she
said the operator's response was but the call still ended up being free...

In article <sobq9j$m43$1@dont-email.me>, The Real Bev
<bashley101@gmail.com> wrote:

> >> Well, the disadvantage is that you (as a mobile user) have to pay
> >> for calls you do not want.
> >
> > You do not. You see the number calling you (and the name if it's in your
> > contact list). If you do not answer then you are not charged. You can
> > let it go to voicemail at no charge.
>
> That would be nice. I suspect if I just reject the call no charge
> occurs,

correct.

> but I've seen rejected calls go to voicemail and been helpless
> to prevent it and I DO get charged then.

there is no charge when someone leaves voicemail.

there is a charge if you listen to voicemail from the mobile phone, but
not if you listen from a landline (unless there are landline charges
for the call).

In article <sobr2b$q4t$1@dont-email.me>, AJL <noemail@none.com> wrote:

>
> > Back in the dark ages when my son was driving between home and
> > Berkeley he would stop at the halfway point (when he refilled the
> > tank) and call us collect. We would, of course, refuse the call.
> > "I'm not dead yet" calls are way better than NOT getting them.
>
> My folks did kind of the same thing. When a relative returned home they
> would make a long distance person-to-person call to a fictitious name at
> my folk's number. When they told the operator the person wasn't there
> there was no charge and the folks knew the relative got home OK.

another method is ring once. if there's no second ring, call back.

On 12/2/2021 7:35 PM, nospam wrote:
> AJL <noemail@none.com> wrote:
>> Bev wrote:

>>> Back in the dark ages when my son was driving between home and
>>> Berkeley he would stop at the halfway point (when he refilled
>>> the tank) and call us collect. We would, of course, refuse the
>>> call. "I'm not dead yet" calls are way better than NOT getting
>>> them.

>> My folks did kind of the same thing. When a relative returned home
>> they would make a long distance person-to-person call to a
>> fictitious name at my folk's number. When they told the operator
>> the person wasn't there there was no charge and the folks knew the
>> relative got home OK.

> another method is ring once. if there's no second ring, call back.

Hams used to use one ringers to get another ham across the country on a
the air on a prearranged frequency. Amazing how many ways there were to
cheat Ma Bell...

On 12/02/2021 10:01 PM, AJL wrote:
> On 12/2/2021 7:35 PM, nospam wrote:
>> AJL <noemail@none.com> wrote:
>>> Bev wrote:
>
>>>> Back in the dark ages when my son was driving between home and
>>>> Berkeley he would stop at the halfway point (when he refilled
>>>> the tank) and call us collect. We would, of course, refuse the
>>>> call. "I'm not dead yet" calls are way better than NOT getting
>>>> them.
>
>>> My folks did kind of the same thing. When a relative returned home
>>> they would make a long distance person-to-person call to a
>>> fictitious name at my folk's number. When they told the operator
>>> the person wasn't there there was no charge and the folks knew the
>>> relative got home OK.
>
>> another method is ring once. if there's no second ring, call back.
>
> Hams used to use one ringers to get another ham across the country on a
> the air on a prearranged frequency. Amazing how many ways there were to
> cheat Ma Bell...

Remember Captain Crunch and blue boxes? Everybody at Caltech made LD
devices until it was announced that the honor code disallowed them.
People stopped using them.

--
Cheers, Bev
"The way England treats her prisoners, she doesn't
deserve to have any." --Oscar Wilde

Am 03.12.21 um 00:59 schrieb The Real Bev:
> I worry about the harm the surveillance can cause. I don't think that
> people who want to sell me something will want to harm me in any way,
> although spam is a real annoyance.
>
> Not so the governments. They have guns and can only get my money by --
> ultimately -- threatening to use them.

This document gives you perhaps an idea.

https://propertyofthepeople.org/document-detail/?doc-id=21114562

--
De gustibus non est disputandum

sms <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote:
> On 12/2/2021 1:55 PM, Rob wrote:
>> nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote:
>>> In article <slrnsqiev7.1g9.nomail@xs9.xs4all.nl>, Rob
>>> <nomail@example.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>>>> nanp was designed to have fixed length numbers, with a 3-3-4 format,
>>>>>>> which has several advantages over variable length numbers, including
>>>>>>> simpler phone switches and easier to remember numbers as well as
>>>>>>> knowing where they are located.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> No, the contrary! In your system the knowledge of where 212 is located
>>>>>> brings you nothing w.r.t. the location of 213.
>>>>>
>>>>> no reason why it should.
>>>>
>>>> Because you said: knowing where they are located.
>>>> With our area code, it is easy to know where they are located.
>>>
>>> same here.
>>
>> You would have to remember the entire table.
>
> No, because very few people would ever call most of the area codes. The
> ones you remember are the ones near you and the ones in highly populated
> areas. Most people probably know that New York City is 212 and Los
> Angeles is 213. They aren't memorizing area codes. If they really need
> to know the area code they can always look it up. Pre-Internet there
> were phone directories that had that information in it. It used to be a
> big deal when the new phone books were delivered to your house, back
> before many people had unlisted numbers (and it cost extra to not have
> your number printed in the directory).

You are just as dense as "nospam", right?
How do you guys keep toggling between making one claim, then contradicting
that this is a valid claim?

You guys say "easier to remember numbers as well as knowing where they
are located". NO SUCH THING. From the above you still don't know
there the number is located.

Here, when I know where 0346 is located and I get a call from 0345,
(comparable to 213 or 214 in your example), I still know that they
are from the same general area, the area of my province. NO SUCH THING
in the USA, knowing were 212 and 213 are located tells you absolutely
nothing about 214.

sms <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote:
> I'm often amazed at how chaotic and thoughtless the whole European phone
> numbering system is, but remember you had 40+ countries, each creating
> their own numbering scheme, with a phone number length that seemed
> sufficient just for that country.

But that is actually a good thing, right? A country like France or
Germany requires more phone numbers than Luxemburg or Malta.
Why can't they have a different length number?

Do you propose that all e-mail addresses are the same length?
Or all po box numbers?

On 12/2/2021 4:37 PM, The Real Bev wrote:
> On 12/01/2021 09:47 AM, sms wrote:
>
>> For the original poster, "caller pays" (or "texter pays") would be
>> wonderful. If she needs to make a call she could call someone, hang-up
>> before they answer, and have them call her back and she would not be
>> charged anything. Of course whoever is calling her would have to pay
>> under such a system.
>
> Excellent!
>
> Back in the dark ages when my son was driving between home and Berkeley
> he would stop at the halfway point (when he refilled the tank) and call
> us collect.  We would, of course, refuse the call.  "I'm not dead yet"
> calls are way better than NOT getting them.  Now I use most of  my
> precious minutes to let my husband know that I didn't get killed skiing.

We called that "signaling." I remember my mom telling my brother, who
was driving back to college, "signal when you get there."

Try explaining that to a millenial.

In article <socbr2$7at$1@dont-email.me>, AJL <noemail@none.com> wrote:

> >>> Back in the dark ages when my son was driving between home and
> >>> Berkeley he would stop at the halfway point (when he refilled
> >>> the tank) and call us collect. We would, of course, refuse the
> >>> call. "I'm not dead yet" calls are way better than NOT getting
> >>> them.
>
> >> My folks did kind of the same thing. When a relative returned home
> >> they would make a long distance person-to-person call to a
> >> fictitious name at my folk's number. When they told the operator
> >> the person wasn't there there was no charge and the folks knew the
> >> relative got home OK.
>
> > another method is ring once. if there's no second ring, call back.
>
> Hams used to use one ringers to get another ham across the country on a
> the air on a prearranged frequency. Amazing how many ways there were to
> cheat Ma Bell...

the easiest and most effective ways were with various coloured boxes...

In article <socflv$mtt$1@dont-email.me>, The Real Bev
<bashley101@gmail.com> wrote:

>
> Remember Captain Crunch and blue boxes? Everybody at Caltech made LD
> devices until it was announced that the honor code disallowed them.
> People stopped using them.

they might have said that, but they didn't stop using them. boxing was
*very* popular on college campuses, including caltech. further north,
steve jobs and steve wozniak used to sell blue boxes at uc berkeley,
stanford and other bay area schools. boxing was also popular at mit and
other schools along with non-college users.

In article <slrnsqjmjt.25j.nomail@xs9.xs4all.nl>, Rob
<nomail@example.com> wrote:

> >>>>>>> nanp was designed to have fixed length numbers, with a 3-3-4 format,
> >>>>>>> which has several advantages over variable length numbers, including
> >>>>>>> simpler phone switches and easier to remember numbers as well as
> >>>>>>> knowing where they are located.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> No, the contrary! In your system the knowledge of where 212 is located
> >>>>>> brings you nothing w.r.t. the location of 213.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> no reason why it should.
> >>>>
> >>>> Because you said: knowing where they are located.
> >>>> With our area code, it is easy to know where they are located.
> >>>
> >>> same here.
> >>
> >> You would have to remember the entire table.
> >
> > No, because very few people would ever call most of the area codes. The
> > ones you remember are the ones near you and the ones in highly populated
> > areas. Most people probably know that New York City is 212 and Los
> > Angeles is 213. They aren't memorizing area codes. If they really need
> > to know the area code they can always look it up. Pre-Internet there
> > were phone directories that had that information in it. It used to be a
> > big deal when the new phone books were delivered to your house, back
> > before many people had unlisted numbers (and it cost extra to not have
> > your number printed in the directory).
>
> You are just as dense as "nospam", right?
> How do you guys keep toggling between making one claim, then contradicting
> that this is a valid claim?

there is no contradiction in the above.

you do not understand how nanp was designed and insist your method is
the only correct method possible.

> You guys say "easier to remember numbers as well as knowing where they
> are located". NO SUCH THING. From the above you still don't know
> there the number is located.

not true. it's very easy to know where a number is.

what you fail to grasp is that the only places that matter to people
are the places they actually call.

nobody calls every single area code, so there's no reason to memorize
the entire area code and exchange allocation for the entire country.

> Here, when I know where 0346 is located and I get a call from 0345,
> (comparable to 213 or 214 in your example), I still know that they
> are from the same general area, the area of my province. NO SUCH THING
> in the USA, knowing were 212 and 213 are located tells you absolutely
> nothing about 214.

there's no reason why it should, other than it's a populated area
because it has a low number of pulls.

those who regularly call 214 would know where it is, which is all that
matters. those who do not call 214 do not need to know since they never
call anyone there.

as i said, nanp area codes were allocated based on pulls and
population, which is a much better method because it improves the
efficiency of the system. the faster calls can be connected, the more
calls that can be processed. new york city and los angeles had the most
people and were assigned the shortest codes.

your system of geographical allocation is not efficient.

In article <slrnsqjmm4.25j.nomail@xs9.xs4all.nl>, Rob
<nomail@example.com> wrote:

> > I'm often amazed at how chaotic and thoughtless the whole European phone
> > numbering system is, but remember you had 40+ countries, each creating
> > their own numbering scheme, with a phone number length that seemed
> > sufficient just for that country.
>
> But that is actually a good thing, right? A country like France or
> Germany requires more phone numbers than Luxemburg or Malta.
> Why can't they have a different length number?

because it's harder to remember variable length numbers and also makes
the switches more complicated and less efficient.

a lot of research went into nanp.

> Do you propose that all e-mail addresses are the same length?
> Or all po box numbers?

not the same thing. not even close to the same thing.

In article <socrh3$rhk$1@dont-email.me>, sms
<scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote:

> > Back in the dark ages when my son was driving between home and Berkeley
> > he would stop at the halfway point (when he refilled the tank) and call
> > us collect.  We would, of course, refuse the call.  "I'm not dead yet"
> > calls are way better than NOT getting them.  Now I use most of  my
> > precious minutes to let my husband know that I didn't get killed skiing.
>
> We called that "signaling." I remember my mom telling my brother, who
> was driving back to college, "signal when you get there."
>
> Try explaining that to a millenial.

try explaining a rotary dial phone to a millennial.

or just let two 17 year olds try to figure it out on their own:
<https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oHNEzndgiFI>