benii
New Member
905 and apparently, calling to certain 905 numbers is long distance 
|
|
|
what area code do you have?
- Thread starter lightarchitect
- Start date
JasonParis
Moderator
The 289 is 905's equivalent of the 416's 647. It has the exact same geographic area as the 905 does.
And yes, two numbers having the same area code has no bearing on whether a call is long distance or not. For instance Oshawa and Niagara Falls are both 905.
And yes, two numbers having the same area code has no bearing on whether a call is long distance or not. For instance Oshawa and Niagara Falls are both 905.
Dan416
Senior Member
And 365 is 289's 289, i.e. 905's second 289, or just in plain English, 905's third area code to be introduced in the next few years when 289 numbers run out.
437 is (likely to be) 416's 365 (according to the 365 planning documents).
So 289/365/905 are the same geographic area.
416/437/647 will also be the same geographic area.
I find it remarkable that 289 is exhausting faster than 647 even though it was introduced after 647.
nfitz
Superstar
I have a hard time believing either 647 or especially 289 are approaching being full given how rarely I see the numbers compared to 416 or 905 numbers.
One thing that is becoming clear, is the dial 1- for long-distance but not for local is just becoming annoying. Often I don't know, or care, if the number is long-distance or not; and redialing with or without the 1 is a pain in the neck. Rogers just ignore this (and issues a warning if it's going to be long-distance, but keeps going; however when using a landline it's painfully annoying.
One thing that is becoming clear, is the dial 1- for long-distance but not for local is just becoming annoying. Often I don't know, or care, if the number is long-distance or not; and redialing with or without the 1 is a pain in the neck. Rogers just ignore this (and issues a warning if it's going to be long-distance, but keeps going; however when using a landline it's painfully annoying.
Dan416
Senior Member
Well relief planning for 905/289 is already well underway, so whether you believe it or not is irrelevant. You need only check cnac.ca to see all the relevant relief planning material. And the fact that 416/647 isn't listed under relief activities indicates planning for it hasn't begun yet.