[188777] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: phone fun,
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (tim@pelican.org)
Fri Apr 15 04:49:41 2016
X-Original-To: nanog@nanog.org
Date: Fri, 15 Apr 2016 09:49:37 +0100 (BST)
From: "tim@pelican.org" <tim@pelican.org>
To: nanog@nanog.org
In-Reply-To: <20160414153236.GA88366@ussenterprise.ufp.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces@nanog.org
On Thursday, 14 April, 2016 16:32, "Leo Bicknell" <bicknell@ufp.org> said:=
=0A=0A> So maybe 10% of all cell phones are primarly used in the "wrong" ar=
ea?=0A=0AOut of curiosity, does anyone have a good pointer to the history o=
f how / why US mobile ended up in the same numbering plan as fixed-line?=0A=
=0AOver here in the UK we had a very different approach where mobile phones=
went into their own area codes from the start, hence no confusion as to wh=
at type of device you were calling, and it was trivial to put the increased=
cost of the call on the caller. (It's *incredibly* rare, if not non-exist=
ent, here for the mobile user to pay for incoming calls or SMS).=0A=0AOf co=
urse, we got our own set of problems once number portability kicked in - a =
lot of operators had set up "free / cheap on the same network" tarrifs, whi=
ch was easy while you knew for sure that 07aaa nnnnnn was Orange but 07bbb =
nnnnnn was O2. Once you could take your number with you to another network=
, it became a lot more guesss-work as to how much you were going to be bill=
ed for any given call...=0A=0ARegards,=0ATim.=0A
