+++ATH0

« AppleScript Pain | Main | Further phone drawls »

June 09, 2003

Creeping Obsolecence

In Washington DC this past week, a very interesting court case came to an end. The result of this case is in effect something that will have deep impacting repercussions for telecommunications that won't be felt for a few years. The case revolves around ownership of phone numbers, and the use of cell phones (here).

I believe this ruling will be the start of downward spiral for telecommunications as we know it. Why? Examining the current infrastructure used throughout the US for telecommunications you have a few essential business ideas: calling areas, and call initiator being the two big ones.

Calling areas is comprised of a couple concepts that include local calling, long distance calling, and area codes. In the current business incarnation, these are assumed to be standard essential pieces that everyone will partake in.

Call initiator is an aspect that believes each individual placing a call should be the sole source of charge. Many current telephone plans sell an "unlimited local calling" plan, wherein an individual may call as many local numbers as needed. Studies have shown (and I've lost the link now) that the actual number of people who need this option are very few, allowing the phone companies to bring in the pay off difference.

Area codes.

Once a completely useful system, that allowed a caller to identify the general area where they were calling to, for example a 212 prefix is for New York. Today with the popularity of cellular phones, you may be required to call "across the country" to talk to the individual standing a 1/2 block away from you within sight. The area code no longer can serve as a function of location identification, but merely as a denoted marker for creating unique personal caller ids. If I can now move to Idaho, Wisconsin, or Iowa and not be required to request a new phone number this is great! One of the biggest pains of moving is ensuring that everyone you know has been given your most recent phone number. Unfortunately, now the guy who lives down the street from you has a 708 prefix on his phone, while you and everyone else has a 418. This conundrum leads into...

Long distance.

As it stands with current land line options, long distance can be equated to essential purchasing. In my hometown, for example, calling 15 minutes away was considered long distance for me, while friends 15 minutes away could call me locally. With cellular plans pushing free long distance, and the use of a cellular telephone as a primary phone this seems to be rather non-necessary concept. How often do you call someone else's cell who you know is in the same state/county/city as you, but has an area code foreign to yours? When long distance isn't an issue, I'm willing to bet quite often and with reckless abandonment. But the concept of long distance doesn't fit into a society anymore either, especially a mobile one.

Now that your neighbor has a 708 prefix on his phone (because we've already established area codes are irrelevant), does this mean you should be penalized for their reluctance to completely remove the remnants of their previous life? This should be considered a local phone call.

Tele-marking.

After having spoken with numerous tele-marketers in a non-work environment, I've discovered one common theme. It seems the state of Pennsylvania is very open to allowing (evil) tele-marking call centers to exist, and initiate their calling out. The catch is of course, they cannot be calling an in state number. Given that we no longer need long distance, it would stand to reason that receiving one of the many Pennsylvania prefixes would allow you (a phone owner) to cut down on the number of tele-marketing calls received daily. I'm sure there are other states with similar rules, but now consider the consequence of this kind of behavior. Through a few minutes of searching, a country could slow down an entire industry without the laborious process of legislation. Grandiose yes, but it is a potential result.

"Unlimited Local calling"

The idea of the option for unlimited local calling becomes irrelevant too. A cellular phone user is no longer limited an artificial limit on calls, but rather an easily identified airtime used measurement. With free airtime on nights and weekends, this limit becomes fuzzy to the point of inconsequential.

How does this all fit in with the recent court ruling? I purchase a plan from a carrier, and now proceed to move about the country. In certain areas, service with one provider will be better than with another. Given that I can now keep the same telephone number, there is no barrier for me to switch over and continue to use my cellular telephone as a primary phone service. The new barrier is network access, but that can be overcome through technological means already in place (aka new phone).

Posted by Dan at June 9, 2003 07:07 AM

Comments

Posted by: Derick at June 9, 2003 10:32 AM