On Tue, 3 Apr 2012 14:23:03 +0000 (UTC), "Adam H. Kerman"
wrote:

Nobody wrote:

It intrigues me as to why North America cannot go to area code +
eight-digit addressing. Theoretically, you're increasing the number
availability by ten but don't have to create a new area code.

Aussie's done it, so have Brazil, Japan, France...

If planned for early enough, it could have been done if use of 0 or 1 as
the second digit was for longer line numbers. But you're misunderstanding
the situation that leads to the opening of new area codes, which is not
now, and never has been, about rapid exhaustion of line numbers.

I'm not misunderstanding anything! I know why these area codes are
required. All I'm saying is for simplicity's sake for the Average Jo
and Joe, one area code for local calling would be easier than a bunch
of disparates.

"If planned early enuf"? Oz, France, Brazil, Japan I doubt would've
been planning any further ahead so it cannot be that difficult to
achieve.

It would however stop this "overlay" situation, e.g. here in Metro
Vancouver where 778 is overlaid on 604 and a third (236) has been
assigned for use beginning next year.