News   Mar 28, 2024
 189     0 
News   Mar 28, 2024
 201     0 
News   Mar 28, 2024
 257     0 

The Unofficial 416/647 & 289/905 New Area Code Poll

Which of the following area codes would you prefer be used to relieve 289/905?


  • Total voters
    36

Dan416

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Apr 24, 2007
Messages
8,177
Reaction score
976
I'm not sure when 416/647 will be exhausting, but CNA estimates place 289/905 needing a new area code somewhere between 2014 and 2016. Using the CNA NPA Code Selection Tool at http://cnac.ca/npa_codes/relief/NPA_Selection_Tool_2009-08-07.xls, it appears the frontrunning area codes for 289/905 are: 249, 365, 367, 368, 437, 742, 942; and for 416/647 are: 257, 387, 437, 474, 584, 639, 672, 851, 942. If you look at the spreadsheet, these are the ones checked as being unassignable in the home NPA.

Because I'm pretty random, I decided to have a totally unofficial vote to see what area code people in 289/905 and 416/647 would like as their new area codes.

Okay I just looked below and it seems I can only have one poll per thread. Since relief planning has commenced for 289/905, we'll start with it.
 
Last edited:
My choices: for 289/905 I chose 249 and 367. 249 because it's close to 289, and 367 because it's got consecutive numbers which I like.

For 416/647 I would choose 474, because it's close to 647.
 
Well we'll all be dialing it as often as we dial 289 these days so it better be good LOL.
 
The shortest area codes sound the best: 249, 365, 368, 942. I voted for 365.

Are 420 and 666 available?
 
The shortest area codes sound the best: 249, 365, 368, 942. I voted for 365.

Are 420 and 666 available?

I listed all the ones that are reserved. Others are "available" but they aren't reserved as a "future NPA" in the NPAs discussed.
 
It should be noted that 249 has been recommended as the next area code for 705.
 
It should be noted that 249 has been recommended as the next area code for 705.

oh duh, i think i knew that. So my vote goes to 367. Actually I think 365 is easier to dial because it's in a right angle.
 
Most people like to keep their existing telephones when they move. However, it is when they move out of an area code to another that they need a brand new set of area codes. That, and the expansion of cell phones.

I remember that our family had an LEnnox exchange number and had to change to a completely new number when we moved into the ROgers exchange. It was in the same old city of Toronto, but the number had to be changed.

Now we have a choice of numbers. My home phone number and each of my family's cell phone number have the same last four digits.

Too bad we couldn't add another digit for each of the cell phones we have instead, ie. 416-555-1234 for the home, 416-555-1234-1 for my cell phone, 416-555-1234-2 for my spouse, and 416-555-1234-3 and 416-555-1234-4 for each of the kids.
 
I like the idea of adding a digit for a cellphone tied to a home number, but it wouldn't work for people who didn't have both. People with calls but not land lines might in that case be unwittingly linked to land line numbers that they have nothing to do with.

Meanwhile, regarding area codes, I don't think it makes sense to have similar area code numbers within one code as it might be more confusing than actually helpful.

In the end, I just wish that the 416 and the 905 had been carved in 2, or even three, when 647 and 289 were overlaid. I know people hate changing their phone numbers, but all of the 905 had to do it at one point, and we did get through it pretty well. I would rather see single codes represent smaller geographic regions, and would happily change my number, if the proposal were put to me (for example Toronto west of Yonge or the DVP getting 647, with the rest retaining 416, although that as a single political unit, I am fine with Toronto having 2 area codes overlaid). The 905, however, would have been much better split in three: north and east of Toronto getting one code, Peel and Halton getting another, and Hamilton-Niagara getting a third. Geography is more important to me than is for a lot of people though...

42
 
It also recommends 942 as the next area code for 902.

Emphasis was mine. At first I thought this was a mistyping of 905. But it specifically recommends not using 942 for 289/905 as 942 is suitable for 902.

That said, the documents closes on these words:

RPC to assess and recommend a code from 365, 367, 368, 437, 742 (dependent on recommended relief and above factors.)

So it'll likely either be 365, 367, 368, 437 or 742.
 
I chose 942 as an extension to the 905 area code, to carry on the '9' ... probably easier to remember and classify
 
Since 249 and 942 have been effectively removed from the running, I wonder if there's any way the mods could remove those options from the poll?
 

Back
Top