January 11th, 2007

Filed under:
Canada
15 Comments »

You’ll Pry My 604 Number From My Cold, Dead Hands

CRTC watcher Tod Maffin has noted that BC is running out of phone numbers. Again:

In British Columbia, the proposed relief plan is for the 250 area code region, which includes British Columbia outside of the Lower Mainland, (Telecom Public Notice 2007-2) but depending on the relief measures implemented, customers in the Lower Mainland, served by area codes 604 and 778 could also be impacted.

Any suggestions for a new area code? How about 197, in homage to two BC hockey players, Joe Sakic (and, you know, Steve Yzerman) and Cliff Ronning. And now how about a suggestion that’s less lame?

Comments: 15 Responses so far

brem
January 11th, 2007
5:54 pm

it’s only a friggin number.

[Reply]

Matt Teichrob
January 11th, 2007
6:37 pm

I don’t think area codes can start with the digits 0 or 1, as these are used as “access codes”. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Area_codes

[Reply]

Michael
January 11th, 2007
7:04 pm

Something like 288 would appeal to the Chinese population in Richmond.

[Reply]

Andrea Coutu from Become a Consultant Blog
January 11th, 2007
11:55 pm

I hope they handle this intelligently. Don’t just dump a new code into a big region. It’s easier to say, “Jane lives in Campbell River. The Island is 250.” and “Bob lives in Keremeos. That’s ***.” But when they introduced 778, they gave no rhyme or reason. It’s just chaos within the GVRD and you have to memorize 10 digits as a result.

[Reply]

darren
January 11th, 2007
11:58 pm

Andrea: I don’t know if this is shameful or practical, but I’ve simply stopped memorizing numbers. Either they’re in my phone, or I ask the Internet. I’ve got a shoddy memory as it is, so this policy plays to my strengths.

[Reply]

Alice in wonderland
January 12th, 2007
6:49 am

This has been an issue from the begining of telephony history.

At one point, things were small enough that we’d place a call and an operator would connect us. Then the five-diget number came into affect, followed by the seven, now the 10.

I have to use the area code plus the seven diget number to call my neighbor across the street. Silly I think. However, that’s the reality.

Things seem to be expedited because of the population of cell phones.

[Reply]

Beth
January 12th, 2007
10:12 am

Brem, you clearly aren’t from Vancouver. No one from Vancouver would say that about 604.

[Reply]

brem
January 12th, 2007
10:18 am

Beth: it’s like that in every part of every country. People simply don’t like change, but can’t provide a rational answer as to why.

[Reply]

darren
January 12th, 2007
10:19 am

Apparently my sarcasm wasn’t adequately clear?

[Reply]

Ian King
January 12th, 2007
11:45 am

From the Canadian numbering administrator’s 250 area code relief meeting minutes: The new area code will be 236. (pdf)

Aside from 2 * 3 = 6, I can’t think of anything else to make of the new area code.

[Reply]

Derek K. Miller
January 12th, 2007
11:46 am

This is why I recommend whenever I talk to businesses that, (a) they must have a website, however simple (yes, some still don’t!), and (b) they should print the URL on EVERYTHING they have — bags, business cards, signage, napkins, receipts, whatever. A good domain is so much easier to remember than ever-expanding phone numbers that it’s silly.

[Reply]

Rob Cottingham
January 12th, 2007
8:52 pm

Damn. I was kind of hoping for 404. (I know, it’s spoken for, but c’mon: we could take Atlanta.)

[Reply]

Erika
January 13th, 2007
12:45 am

How about 405 or 503? 604 is catchy. I mean, Chad Kroeger didn’t start 778 Records, he started 604 Records. 236 Records ain’t bad. But every single time I give someone my number(s), I have to tell them 604 or 778 so they don’t punch in the wrong one. I got my cell phone while living in North Van, and was given a CHILLIWACK number, 858 - ####, so talk about running out. The good thing about 778 is you always know that it’s a cell number, so you don’t accidentally mistake someone’s brother for your friend. That can get confusing, let alone embarassing.

[Reply]

Joe Clark
January 13th, 2007
1:09 pm

236 is a poor choice for an overlay of 250, as they both begin with the same digit, leading to confusion. Cf. 910 and 919 in North Carolina.

[Reply]

Area Code
June 20th, 2007
12:56 pm

236 will not be used for at least another 10 years. It was set aside for BC because it is the only projected future Canadian area code code that does not correspond to any prefixes assigned in existing area codes 250, 604 and 778.

Mixups like those that sometimes happen with 919 and 910 should be very rare with 250 and 236 as two of the digits are different, not just one, and they are not close like 919 and 910 are.

[Reply]

Add a comment