Talk:Automatic number announcement circuit

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

MCI

MCI no longer exists as a company, should these references be changed to Verizon now? Androsyn (talk) 16:40, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

Dead at least on 6-13-23 2600:1016:B129:CAE2:0:57:64AB:4C01 (talk) 18:43, 13 June 2023 (UTC)
If you dial the +1.800.444.4444 number, it still starts with "Thank you for calling MCI." As such, I'd recommend retaining the name here for continuity in case someone uses this as a lookup source (you wouldn't want them to hang up when they hear "Verizon" and are expecting "MCI", thus never getting to hear the ANA) Ruscal.rockett (talk) 22:48, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

Untitled

Can anyone say where the content of this page came from? It was all put here in one edit, with a low link density, which is usually a sign of copyright violation. Derrick Coetzee 18:05, 21 Aug 2004 (UTC)

  • It looks like much (if not all) of it is from old phone phreaking resources on BBSs from the late 1980s and early 1990s. I really don't think anybody is compiling this stuff anymore. -71.49.161.98 16:55, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
People are still making lists of this sort of stuff. See Phreaks and Geeks. Timsheridan 18:56, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
Don't worry, eyes are watching the list, and stuff has been added and removed. This list is practically public knowledge anyway. --Nmatavka (talk) 07:21, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

These numbers are not entirely private and are used by many telephony service personnel today which means most of the numbers are still current. I suggest that the removal of the list was in haste, as it's not clear that any copyright has been violated. Although these numbers are not published in local directories, they are freely available if requested from local interconnect and central offices.

I decided to bring the directory back, since there was no consensus to remove it in the 1st place. The above comment is right---I feel that removing the numbers may be counter-productive. I have, however, removed a few numbers that do not work, and I have added a few that I have discovered myself. --Nmatavka (talk) 05:33, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
Eyes are not watching this rubbish list. The phreaksandgeeks.com domain is parked at GoDaddy, so proves nothing. There are numbers still listed which were marked as dead by editors here as far back as 2012, right in the article body, and never removed. Some have been assigned to other purposes years ago; for instance "in area NPA, just dial 999 and it tells you your own number" fails if 1-NPA-999-XXXX has been a regular exchange prefix for years. (Oh, and don't try that in England...) Similarly, using anything N-1-1 is broken in communities where those prefixes all point to their standard locations (2-1-1 community info, 3-1-1 city hall, 4-1-1 directory info, 5-1-1 road conditions, 6-1-1 repair or business office, 7-1-1 TDD operator, 8-1-1 telehealth/teletriage or cable location, 9-1-1 distress). This is a joke. Furthermore, these are usually provider-specific (so a wireless provider or a CLEC might use different numbers, or not support this at all) with no provider specified. If the number was for the incumbent landline carrier only, say so, if it was reassigned years ago, remove it.
This whole mess fails WP:RS, claiming "some phone phreak put this on a list in 1980" is not a valid source to affirm the number works now. We can say that 958 and 1-NPA-959 contain test numbers as NANPA.com marks these 'UA' (unassignable) in their CO code list for that area code; the same might be true if there's some other clear 'UA' flag that can't be attributed to something else (such as other adjacent or in-state area codes, N-1-1 or premium numbers). Listing these after making a test call is questionable (WP:OR seems to prohibit it, but at least it would be a working number) but info with no cited source and most likely wrong is worthless. If there's no NANPA (or CNAC, in Canada) reservation on the prefix, and what's there isn't a regular line which can be verified to be announcing ANAC or CID, get these off the list. Better yet, delete the entire list of local-only test numbers as unverifiable; it falls so far short of the accuracy standards here that I wouldn't even offer it to Uncyclopedia. K7L (talk) 17:59, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a directory

Wikipedia is not a list of phone numbers. This page is for explaining what an ANAC is, not listing every ANAC in the known world. FCYTravis 04:24, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but put it to a vote/consensus before removing the list next time. --Nmatavka (talk) 05:33, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
Does this list meet the standards applied to any other Wikipedia content? If this were a list of blonde jokes or light bulb jokes, instead of a list of test numbers that (mostly) no longer work, at this level of usability, it would've been removed in a NY minute. K7L (talk) 18:30, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
+1 NPA-958-2580 can be verified simply by calling it from any regular incumbent landline in Bell Canada territory - the same is presumably true for any of the other system-wide numbers for major carriers. We know that NPA-958-xxxx and 1-NPA-959-xxxx (except +1 204 958-xxxx MTS Winnipeg) are test numbers because those blocks are called out as test numbers in the CO code lists on NANPA.com or CNAC.ca. Even if we don't have "every ANAC in the world" (as a small, local independent telco in Moose Creek, Ontario or somewhere is hard to verify unless one were in Moose Creek) the system-wide 958/959 numbers for the major carriers are verifiable (by calling them from that carrier) and are notable. 204.237.51.164 (talk) 22:06, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

link broken

The link at the bottom is broken —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.179.5.200 (talk) 14:21, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

giant list

instead of a giant list, it woudl be much easier to read if this was in tabular format. --RichardMills65 (talk) 17:59, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Graveyard

Unlisted ANAC

United Kingdom

ANAC numbers

Listing of ANA numbers removed

Related Articles

Wikiwand AI