Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Overview of the 555-XXXX phone number

lookify.io

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 100 posts

Re: Overview of the 555-XXXX phone number

#21

Post by sverhagen »

samstave wrote: post #15
mathgorges wrote: post #3

Very fun article, thanks for sharing :) I think the current title ‘You could own a 555-XXXX phone number but Verizon’s charged you $2,500 to use it’ doesn’t capture how bad the deal was —- here’s the relevant quote from the article > Verizon was notorious for charging high fees to establish service to 555 numbers, charging $2,500 for each area code that you wanted your 555 number to be routed in.

Likely because large movies were already willing to pay for such... I've never tried to call a 555 num from a movie because it was "common knowledge" that they were fake... I had NO idea that you could actually call one....

Well, could you, or were they just reserved? That's still not clear to me. I guess I'll find out, next time I need to bust some ghosts.

Re: Overview of the 555-XXXX phone number

#22

Post by alex_young »

valleyer wrote: post #18
alex_young wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

“You could own” is present tense. Perhaps “could have” would be better?

"Could" can be both the conditional present tense or preterite tense in English (at least AmE). It's ambiguous. See: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/could#Verb

The point I was attempting to make is that the usage is incorrect and misleading in this context. The way the title is worded is indeed the past tense usage.

Re: Overview of the 555-XXXX phone number

#24

Post by User23 »

version_five wrote: post #8
alex_young wrote: post #4

This title is really poor. It was $2500 per area code you connect to, and no longer offered. Not exactly something to write home about.

> no longer offered The title says "charged", not "charges". Re the per area code, I agree, it was also my first thought, but I can't think of any way the poster could have concisely included that in the title

None of the cool kids say “area code,” they’re NPAs.

Sorry, but I have a lingering attachment to telco industry acronyms. Let me tell you about my DNIS[1].

[1] pronounced dee-nis.

Re: Overview of the 555-XXXX phone number

#25

Post by smabie »

samstave wrote: post #15
mathgorges wrote: post #3

Very fun article, thanks for sharing :) I think the current title ‘You could own a 555-XXXX phone number but Verizon’s charged you $2,500 to use it’ doesn’t capture how bad the deal was —- here’s the relevant quote from the article > Verizon was notorious for charging high fees to establish service to 555 numbers, charging $2,500 for each area code that you wanted your 555 number to be routed in.

Likely because large movies were already willing to pay for such... I've never tried to call a 555 num from a movie because it was "common knowledge" that they were fake... I had NO idea that you could actually call one....

The movies never paid Verizon for that. They're just numbers that don't go anywhere

Re: Overview of the 555-XXXX phone number

#26

Post by s1mon »

I love how it isn’t until the third paragraph that the post mentions what country 555-XXXX numbers are relevant to.

This is the World Wide Web folks, not the USA web. The whole blog and offering seems US centric, to the point where I’m assuming it might not work very well at all for people outside of the North American Numbering plan area. We wouldn’t know because they seem to assume that the only people who are going to see this site live in the US, and phone numbers all need to have 9 digits.

Re: Overview of the 555-XXXX phone number

#27

Post by function_seven »

samstave wrote: post #15
mathgorges wrote: post #3

Very fun article, thanks for sharing :) I think the current title ‘You could own a 555-XXXX phone number but Verizon’s charged you $2,500 to use it’ doesn’t capture how bad the deal was —- here’s the relevant quote from the article > Verizon was notorious for charging high fees to establish service to 555 numbers, charging $2,500 for each area code that you wanted your 555 number to be routed in.

Likely because large movies were already willing to pay for such... I've never tried to call a 555 num from a movie because it was "common knowledge" that they were fake... I had NO idea that you could actually call one....

As far as I know the only fake range these days is 555-0000 thru 555-0199. Everything else is assignable.

Re: Overview of the 555-XXXX phone number

#28

Post by function_seven »

User23 wrote: post #24
version_five wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> no longer offered The title says "charged", not "charges". Re the per area code, I agree, it was also my first thought, but I can't think of any way the poster could have concisely included that in the title

None of the cool kids say “area code,” they’re NPAs. Sorry, but I have a lingering attachment to telco industry acronyms. Let me tell you about my DNIS[1]. [1] pronounced dee-nis.

Always fun troubleshooting analog DID (FXO) lines that supported DNIS

Re: Overview of the 555-XXXX phone number

#29

Post by linsomniac »

I peeked through the historically reserved numbers list, and there was a surprising number of what looked like individuals listed in there. Of the 10,000 numbers available in 555 prefix, most of them seemed to be individuals. I wonder what the story was there... Were people just doing it because they could contact the NANPA and ask for one?

Re: Overview of the 555-XXXX phone number

#30

Post by linsomniac »

s1mon wrote: post #26

I love how it isn’t until the third paragraph that the post mentions what country 555-XXXX numbers are relevant to. This is the World Wide Web folks, not the USA web. The whole blog and offering seems US centric, to the point where I’m assuming it might not work very well at all for people outside of the North American Numbering plan area. We wouldn’t know because they seem to assume that the only people who are goin…

It talks about NANPA, so wouldn't it be more accurate to say "what continent" rather than "what country"? The NA stands for North American.
Post reply on HN