Wednesday, May 20, 2009

New York City running out of phone numbers

From the NY Times:

It’s getting to the point where 718 seems like a vintage number. New York City, which already has five area codes, will need another, soon. That much is clear.

The only question — according to a new report by the state’s Department of Public Service, which regulates the telecommunications industry — is whether to create a new area code just for Brooklyn, Queens, the Bronx and Staten Island (which are served by the existing 718 and 347 area codes) or to also encompass Manhattan (which uses the 212 and 646 area codes) and the 917 area code, which is the only code used across all five boroughs.

The unrelenting proliferation of phone numbers — brought about, above all, by the widespread use of cellphones, smartphones and other mobile devices — means that assignable phone numbers for the 718 and 347 area codes will run out by late 2011, according to the paper.


Anonymous said...

Make Manhattan's new phone connection absorb a new area code. The volume of new service probably comes from there.

ew-3 said...

This is only going to get a lot worse. With GSM/SMS modules being installed in everything from water meters to cars to children
and each one needing a phone number we need a few more digits in a phone number.

Anonymous said...

Dear Queens Crap,

Will we actually run out of numbers before global warming kills us all?


Al Gore.

rick said...

Phone numbers are given to telecom companies in blocks of 1000, (ex: 718 555-1000 through 555-1999) no matter how big or small those companies are. The larger companies make use of them, but many of the smaller ones will never use the balance of those blocks, so if they have 400 customers, the unused 600 are effectively "wasted."

Anonymous said...

Phone numbers are given to ... so if they have 400 customers, the unused 600 are effectively "wasted."

Is it possible to "waste" an infinite resource?

Anonymous said...

It's not an infinite resource if they are running out of them, genius.

Anonymous said...


Anonymous said...

new code.
why is this a problem ?