I have been waiting for 12 hours now, when i called the number porting att special number and explained what this article says, the specialist agreed that could be the situation, so i asked him to cancel my activation process so i could restart it in iTunes, but he told me that if i did that, I would need to go have a new SIM card inserted in the iPhone at an ATT store before i tried to reactivate it, because the SIM card is burned into the billing area you first try to activate it on??? I said i didnt think that was the case but he said he thinks my activation will eventually fail and I will need to get another SIM card installed no matter what now, than try to reactivate it?? Does this sound like the truth?? I am porting a Verizon number over which i originally got 5 years ago in another county and ZIP in NJ, so I am now about 15 miles south in a different billing area.
Wow, given the number of first posts I have seen during the past couple of weeks, someone should do a membership count of AI pre-two weeks and post-two weeks of iPhone's introduction!
when activating your phone, your info must match everything on record specially if you have a itunes account already, i suggest you open up a new one with your current info or get it updated, so you wont run into activation issues, but also keep in mind alot of people are posting missleading info about problems they claim are having for example at engaget, which if you really have the phone already you would know they are false, i really dont know why would someone make false claims to keep people away from buying it, what will be the point there
when activating your phone, your info must match everything on record specially if you have a itunes account already, i suggest you open up a new one with your current info or get it updated, so you wont run into activation issues, but also keep in mind alot of people are posting missleading info about problems they claim are having for example at engaget, which if you really have the phone already you would know they are false, i really dont know why would someone make false claims to keep people away from buying it, what will be the point there
Engadget is posting more iPhone stories than TUAW. Despite having an Engadget link that is iPhone-free there many posters coming onto every iPhone page to say how much they hate these stories. Engadget also has a Mobile section which many posters feel these stories belong, while others feel that they aren't given enough coverage to other gadgets.
I don't blame Engadget as they always do extensive coverage of new products it's not their fault that Apple is releasing new tidbits every day. Still, I can see how it would be a much for some people.
Or... Motorola, Sprint, Verizon, Microsoft, Nokia and T-Mobile are forcing their employees to write scathing reviews across the nets or risk losing their jobs.
I believe there's an industry-wide issue here rather than something specific to AT&T/Cingular.
Exactly! AT&T is actually handling the issue correctly: Everyone is supposed to have phone numbers that match up with the market where their phone is primarily used. The author's statements that other carriers have alllowed the porting to happen doesn't mean it's supposed to be done. They're just not following the rules.
In the example given, by entering an address in Cupertino, the author is misrepresenting their PPU (Primary Place of Use or Place of Primary Use; depending on who you ask.) Misrepresenting your PPU is unethical (and possibly illegal as well, depending on the specifics of the circumstances.)
If you've moved to another city (such as a change from Cupertino to Los Angeles, or some such other move), you're supposed to get a new phone number. Local Number Portability (or LNP for short) wasn't intended to let people move around wherever they wanted to & keep their same phone number for life. Rather, LNP was intended to let people stay in the same market and switch carriers. If you move to another market, you're supposed to get a new phone number (local to the place you've moved to) just like always. (That's why it's called local number portability.)
Exactly! AT&T is actually handling the issue correctly: Everyone is supposed to have phone numbers that match up with the market where their phone is primarily used. The author's statements that other carriers have alllowed the porting to happen doesn't mean it's supposed to be done. They're just not following the rules.
In the example given, by entering an address in Cupertino, the author is misrepresenting their PPU (Primary Place of Use or Place of Primary Use; depending on who you ask.) Misrepresenting your PPU is unethical (and possibly illegal as well, depending on the specifics of the circumstances.)
If you've moved to another city (such as a change from Cupertino to Los Angeles, or some such other move), you're supposed to get a new phone number. Local Number Portability (or LNP for short) wasn't intended to let people move around wherever they wanted to & keep their same phone number for life. Rather, LNP was intended to let people stay in the same market and switch carriers. If you move to another market, you're supposed to get a new phone number (local to the place you've moved to) just like always. (That's why it's called local number portability.)
It's not so black and white in my situation. My brother is an existing AT&T customer. He just added me to his family plan so I can get an iphone and switch from tmobile. He lives in California and I live in Boston. I am trying to port my Boston number to my existing AT&T account in the 408 area code and was told by an AT&T rep that I can't do that since the main account holder is in California and my number is 617 and is therefore inelligible. I have had the 617 number for over 7 years. Now I have call forwarding set up from my old phone to my iphone. I really wanted to cancel my tmobile account. Very frustrating.
It's not so black and white in my situation. My brother is an existing AT&T customer. He just added me to his family plan so I can get an iphone and switch from tmobile. He lives in California and I live in Boston. I am trying to port my Boston number to my existing AT&T account in the 408 area code and was told by an AT&T rep that I can't do that since the main account holder is in California and my number is 617 and is therefore inelligible. I have had the 617 number for over 7 years. Now I have call forwarding set up from my old phone to my iphone. I really wanted to cancel my tmobile account. Very frustrating.
If it's just the a two line family plan I suggest you keep your number and get your own plan. Only $5/month per phone for two lines with a lower pool of minutes, and under $7/month per phone but a slightly large pool of minutes. I really don't see that as being worth it to save a dollar and change a week.
• 2-line Family plan with 700 minutes is $109.99
• 3-line Family plan with 1400 minutes is $159.98
• Individual plan with 450 minutes is $59.99
• Individual plan 2x = 900 total minutes at $119.98
Hey back off a bit... sure perhaps he might have been a bit strong making his point but HE IS RIGHT... It's not called "KEEP YOUR SAME NUMBER FOR LIFE" its called "local number portability" and it was specifically put into place so you didn't have to loose your local number simply because you changed carriers... HOWEVER if you MOVE then you should NOT be able to take advantage of it... This act was never meant to provide for that. When you physically MOVE to a new area its a fact of life that YOU GET A NEW NUMBER. It would be a real problem otherwise and would (not so?) slowly deplete all of the phone companies exchanges and make 'local exchanges' non-existent... again... something the LNPA did not intend to do.
I had the same problem. Spent 5 hours on the phone and a total of 8 hours in limbo. AT&T finally ported me from T-Mobile. I have a post on AI and Ars too with all the details.
Hey back off a bit... sure perhaps he might have been a bit strong making his point but HE IS RIGHT... It's not called "KEEP YOUR SAME NUMBER FOR LIFE"
Why not? What is intrinsically wrong with people wanting to keep their number for life? Just because legislation or a set of rules are half-arsed and not intended to provide for that doesn't mean people should not want it. It is a perfectly reasonable thing to want. If people have to bend a few rules to achieve that end I say fair play to them.
Quote:
its called "local number portability" and it was specifically put into place so you didn't have to loose your local number simply because you changed carriers... HOWEVER if you MOVE then you should NOT be able to take advantage of it...
Why not? Who is harmed by it?
Quote:
This act was never meant to provide for that. When you physically MOVE to a new area its a fact of life that YOU GET A NEW NUMBER.
That may be the intention, but why should someone put up with that if it is not in their best interest?
Quote:
It would be a real problem otherwise and would (not so?) slowly deplete all of the phone companies exchanges and make 'local exchanges' non-existent... again... something the LNPA did not intend to do.
Dave
Local exchanges? I thought we were talking about mobile phones? As far as I am aware there are no 'fixed' circuits physically tied to a particular number as with land lines. It's all done on computers isn't it?
Here in Europe we have number portability and effectively a number for life if you so wish. I am not aware that this causes any particular real physical problem except for the phone companies who would rather you couldn't keep your number, but who really cares what they 'want'.
Here in Europe we have number portability and effectively a number for life if you so wish.
So, if you move from Salzburg, Austria to Barcelona, Spain, you will be able to keep your Austrian number ??
Because thats like moving from NY, NY to LA, CA in the USA.
Also, in the US, for legacy reasons, ALL phone numbers, landline and cell, have an AREA code. For example 214 is DFW, 210 is San Antonio etc.
So even if you move within one state, for example from Dallas to San Antonio, you AREA code won't match where you live anymore, if you want to keep your old cell number.
While it isn't convenient, given how the phone number system works in the USA, porting all numbers, regardless of AREA code leads to a big mess. IMO, it is time to create a pool of cell phone pre-fixes instead of AREA codes.
i'm runing into similar problems with porting a number to at&t. i live and work in both nyc and slc, utah. i've had a nyc number for years. i just happen to be in utah when i bought the iphone. i literally got THE last 8gig at the at&t store, a fairly satisfying experience actually.
unfortunately buying it at an att store came back to haunt me. because i bought it in utah and gave them my utah zip code when they did the pre approved credit check, itunes won't let me fake out the system as described above (ethics and politics aside, this is a phone i pay to use and the laws are outdated for the modern multi-city worker) in retrospect i should have told them a nyc zip code when i bought it and that may have made it easier, or i could have driven 1 1/2 hours to the mac store in slc. 20/20 hindsight aside as well, the problem with att is they don't communicate very will internally between they're customer support/tech support/iphone support. i'm on hold with them now and will post the outcome.
so far they've suggested opening an entirely new account with a new credit check #
or giving up my phone #, which i won't do.
has anyone had luck activating on the phone in conjunction with itunes?
thanks
just got off the phone with att customer service activation dept (not the iphone customer service nor the port customer service) the nice guy activated it with a new "request" not tied to the old zip code. works!
Quote:
Originally Posted by cnocbui
Why not? What is intrinsically wrong with people wanting to keep their number for life? Just because legislation or a set of rules are half-arsed and not intended to provide for that doesn't mean people should not want it. It is a perfectly reasonable thing to want. If people have to bend a few rules to achieve that end I say fair play to them.
Why not? Who is harmed by it?
That may be the intention, but why should someone put up with that if it is not in their best interest?
Local exchanges? I thought we were talking about mobile phones? As far as I am aware there are no 'fixed' circuits physically tied to a particular number as with land lines. It's all done on computers isn't it?
Here in Europe we have number portability and effectively a number for life if you so wish. I am not aware that this causes any particular real physical problem except for the phone companies who would rather you couldn't keep your number, but who really cares what they 'want'.
The whole concept of "area codes" needs to be abolished, because it's pretty much obsolete.
Pretty much all phone services have nationwide free calling, so there's no need for a number within the US to be considered "long distance" or not anymore. A few carriers still practice the whole "long distance" thing, but it's fading fast.
If I moved to New York and kept my Miami number (305), it could be a "long distance" call for someone on a New York land line to call me, even if I'm standing right next to them. This is what makes the old area code system so incredibly broken for celphones.
I'm sure it'll be fixed soon, though; once free nationwide calling becomes universal, there will be no reason for numbers to be tied to physical locations anymore.
I agree with the party poopers. Number portability exists so your carrier can't hold your number hostage when you want to switch carriers, not so you can keep the same number for life.
The idea of local exchanges isn't as dead as people think. The phone network is still made of physical cables, it's just that there are a lot more cell towers replacing the last mile of wiring to the user. When you're in your house your handset is going to connect to the same tower all the time. That's one physical location where you're going to use a lot of minutes. It's legitimate for the phone companies to continue to organize numbers geographically.
So, if you move from Salzburg, Austria to Barcelona, Spain, you will be able to keep your Austrian number ??
Because thats like moving from NY, NY to LA, CA in the USA.
No, I don't think you can do that. You can keep your number within a country, irrespective of where in that country you might choose to move to.
Your example was moving between countries as opposed to states within a single country. The two situations are not the same. In Australia I could buy a phone in Perth and move to Sydney and keep the number - a distance as physically great as probably any move within the continental US.
Quote:
Also, in the US, for legacy reasons, ALL phone numbers, landline and cell, have an AREA code. For example 214 is DFW, 210 is San Antonio etc.
So even if you move within one state, for example from Dallas to San Antonio, you AREA code won't match where you live anymore, if you want to keep your old cell number.
I can see that is a problem for people with overly tidy minds but in practical terms what is the problem? Are you implying that if you take a cell phone outside the area its area code pertains to it should cease to work or be deactivated?
Quote:
While it isn't convenient, given how the phone number system works in the USA, porting all numbers, regardless of AREA code leads to a big mess. IMO, it is time to create a pool of cell phone pre-fixes instead of AREA codes.
You are right about changing to cell prefixes.
Here in Europe (as far as I am aware) your prefix relates to your carrier. Those prefixes are recognised as mobile phone prefixes. But if you choose to change carriers your original prefix, being part of your number, goes with you, even though your prefix wont match that which pertains to your new carrier.
While that could be considered a 'mess' I am not aware of it being particularly problematic. I can see what you mean by 'mess' but is it a real problem beyond being just logically untidy?
Your example was moving between countries as opposed to states within a single country. The two situations are not the same.
No they aren't the same but they are a close match. True, the USA is one nation and it consists of several united states vs. Europe, which consists of several union states but is not one nation.
Still, if you say that you can port numbers w/o problems in Europe, well, it isn't correct because you can only port within a state. Whereas in the USA you can port between all states with this workaround.
Quote:
Originally Posted by cnocbui
I can see that is a problem for people with overly tidy minds but in practical terms what is the problem? Are you implying that if you take a cell phone outside the area its area code pertains to it should cease to work or be deactivated?
It messes with the "system". One practical problem is that area codes get exhausted. Area codes are "shared" between landlines and cell phones. I, personally, don't mind the "mess" but it essentially ruins the area code system.
Quote:
Originally Posted by cnocbui
While that could be considered a 'mess' I am not aware of it being particularly problematic. I can see what you mean by 'mess' but is it a real problem beyond being just logically untidy?
I don't know. But if the prefix is carrier dependent and people get different rates for calling phones on different networks then this is probably more annoying than a messy area code system.
I had this happen to me when I tried porting my number about 3 months ago from T-Mobile to Cingular (AT&T). The deal is that you can't port a number from one billing area to another. I had to basically do the same thing...pain in the butt. Their billing areas are still basically an old setup from the Ma Bell days. Other carriers just have one giant billing area (the whole US) while AT&T has them broken up into areas of states etc... This isn't a problem that will go away (maybe sometime in the future, but not anytime soon). I would just try to trick the system to port your number. I live in PA and had to use my mother's address in NY to keep my phone number. Phone numbers don't really mean anything anymore...I mean who pays for long distance anymore?
Comments
when activating your phone, your info must match everything on record specially if you have a itunes account already, i suggest you open up a new one with your current info or get it updated, so you wont run into activation issues, but also keep in mind alot of people are posting missleading info about problems they claim are having for example at engaget, which if you really have the phone already you would know they are false, i really dont know why would someone make false claims to keep people away from buying it, what will be the point there
Engadget is posting more iPhone stories than TUAW. Despite having an Engadget link that is iPhone-free there many posters coming onto every iPhone page to say how much they hate these stories. Engadget also has a Mobile section which many posters feel these stories belong, while others feel that they aren't given enough coverage to other gadgets.
I don't blame Engadget as they always do extensive coverage of new products it's not their fault that Apple is releasing new tidbits every day. Still, I can see how it would be a much for some people.
Or... Motorola, Sprint, Verizon, Microsoft, Nokia and T-Mobile are forcing their employees to write scathing reviews across the nets or risk losing their jobs.
I believe there's an industry-wide issue here rather than something specific to AT&T/Cingular.
Exactly! AT&T is actually handling the issue correctly: Everyone is supposed to have phone numbers that match up with the market where their phone is primarily used. The author's statements that other carriers have alllowed the porting to happen doesn't mean it's supposed to be done. They're just not following the rules.
In the example given, by entering an address in Cupertino, the author is misrepresenting their PPU (Primary Place of Use or Place of Primary Use; depending on who you ask.) Misrepresenting your PPU is unethical (and possibly illegal as well, depending on the specifics of the circumstances.)
If you've moved to another city (such as a change from Cupertino to Los Angeles, or some such other move), you're supposed to get a new phone number. Local Number Portability (or LNP for short) wasn't intended to let people move around wherever they wanted to & keep their same phone number for life. Rather, LNP was intended to let people stay in the same market and switch carriers. If you move to another market, you're supposed to get a new phone number (local to the place you've moved to) just like always. (That's why it's called local number portability.)
Exactly! AT&T is actually handling the issue correctly: Everyone is supposed to have phone numbers that match up with the market where their phone is primarily used. The author's statements that other carriers have alllowed the porting to happen doesn't mean it's supposed to be done. They're just not following the rules.
In the example given, by entering an address in Cupertino, the author is misrepresenting their PPU (Primary Place of Use or Place of Primary Use; depending on who you ask.) Misrepresenting your PPU is unethical (and possibly illegal as well, depending on the specifics of the circumstances.)
If you've moved to another city (such as a change from Cupertino to Los Angeles, or some such other move), you're supposed to get a new phone number. Local Number Portability (or LNP for short) wasn't intended to let people move around wherever they wanted to & keep their same phone number for life. Rather, LNP was intended to let people stay in the same market and switch carriers. If you move to another market, you're supposed to get a new phone number (local to the place you've moved to) just like always. (That's why it's called local number portability.)
Is the author of this:
A) A Lawyer
C) In need of a life
D) A Troll
E) Swiss
F) An alien trying to pass itself off as human
G) Non of the above - simply beyond comprehension
It's not so black and white in my situation. My brother is an existing AT&T customer. He just added me to his family plan so I can get an iphone and switch from tmobile. He lives in California and I live in Boston. I am trying to port my Boston number to my existing AT&T account in the 408 area code and was told by an AT&T rep that I can't do that since the main account holder is in California and my number is 617 and is therefore inelligible. I have had the 617 number for over 7 years. Now I have call forwarding set up from my old phone to my iphone. I really wanted to cancel my tmobile account. Very frustrating.
If it's just the a two line family plan I suggest you keep your number and get your own plan. Only $5/month per phone for two lines with a lower pool of minutes, and under $7/month per phone but a slightly large pool of minutes. I really don't see that as being worth it to save a dollar and change a week.
Is the author of this:
Hey back off a bit... sure perhaps he might have been a bit strong making his point but HE IS RIGHT... It's not called "KEEP YOUR SAME NUMBER FOR LIFE" its called "local number portability" and it was specifically put into place so you didn't have to loose your local number simply because you changed carriers... HOWEVER if you MOVE then you should NOT be able to take advantage of it... This act was never meant to provide for that. When you physically MOVE to a new area its a fact of life that YOU GET A NEW NUMBER. It would be a real problem otherwise and would (not so?) slowly deplete all of the phone companies exchanges and make 'local exchanges' non-existent... again... something the LNPA did not intend to do.
Dave
Hey back off a bit... sure perhaps he might have been a bit strong making his point but HE IS RIGHT... It's not called "KEEP YOUR SAME NUMBER FOR LIFE"
Why not? What is intrinsically wrong with people wanting to keep their number for life? Just because legislation or a set of rules are half-arsed and not intended to provide for that doesn't mean people should not want it. It is a perfectly reasonable thing to want. If people have to bend a few rules to achieve that end I say fair play to them.
its called "local number portability" and it was specifically put into place so you didn't have to loose your local number simply because you changed carriers... HOWEVER if you MOVE then you should NOT be able to take advantage of it...
Why not? Who is harmed by it?
This act was never meant to provide for that. When you physically MOVE to a new area its a fact of life that YOU GET A NEW NUMBER.
That may be the intention, but why should someone put up with that if it is not in their best interest?
It would be a real problem otherwise and would (not so?) slowly deplete all of the phone companies exchanges and make 'local exchanges' non-existent... again... something the LNPA did not intend to do.
Dave
Local exchanges? I thought we were talking about mobile phones? As far as I am aware there are no 'fixed' circuits physically tied to a particular number as with land lines. It's all done on computers isn't it?
Here in Europe we have number portability and effectively a number for life if you so wish. I am not aware that this causes any particular real physical problem except for the phone companies who would rather you couldn't keep your number, but who really cares what they 'want'.
Here in Europe we have number portability and effectively a number for life if you so wish.
So, if you move from Salzburg, Austria to Barcelona, Spain, you will be able to keep your Austrian number ??
Because thats like moving from NY, NY to LA, CA in the USA.
Also, in the US, for legacy reasons, ALL phone numbers, landline and cell, have an AREA code. For example 214 is DFW, 210 is San Antonio etc.
So even if you move within one state, for example from Dallas to San Antonio, you AREA code won't match where you live anymore, if you want to keep your old cell number.
While it isn't convenient, given how the phone number system works in the USA, porting all numbers, regardless of AREA code leads to a big mess. IMO, it is time to create a pool of cell phone pre-fixes instead of AREA codes.
unfortunately buying it at an att store came back to haunt me. because i bought it in utah and gave them my utah zip code when they did the pre approved credit check, itunes won't let me fake out the system as described above (ethics and politics aside, this is a phone i pay to use and the laws are outdated for the modern multi-city worker) in retrospect i should have told them a nyc zip code when i bought it and that may have made it easier, or i could have driven 1 1/2 hours to the mac store in slc. 20/20 hindsight aside as well, the problem with att is they don't communicate very will internally between they're customer support/tech support/iphone support. i'm on hold with them now and will post the outcome.
so far they've suggested opening an entirely new account with a new credit check #
or giving up my phone #, which i won't do.
has anyone had luck activating on the phone in conjunction with itunes?
thanks
just got off the phone with att customer service activation dept (not the iphone customer service nor the port customer service) the nice guy activated it with a new "request" not tied to the old zip code. works!
Why not? What is intrinsically wrong with people wanting to keep their number for life? Just because legislation or a set of rules are half-arsed and not intended to provide for that doesn't mean people should not want it. It is a perfectly reasonable thing to want. If people have to bend a few rules to achieve that end I say fair play to them.
Why not? Who is harmed by it?
That may be the intention, but why should someone put up with that if it is not in their best interest?
Local exchanges? I thought we were talking about mobile phones? As far as I am aware there are no 'fixed' circuits physically tied to a particular number as with land lines. It's all done on computers isn't it?
Here in Europe we have number portability and effectively a number for life if you so wish. I am not aware that this causes any particular real physical problem except for the phone companies who would rather you couldn't keep your number, but who really cares what they 'want'.
Pretty much all phone services have nationwide free calling, so there's no need for a number within the US to be considered "long distance" or not anymore. A few carriers still practice the whole "long distance" thing, but it's fading fast.
If I moved to New York and kept my Miami number (305), it could be a "long distance" call for someone on a New York land line to call me, even if I'm standing right next to them. This is what makes the old area code system so incredibly broken for celphones.
I'm sure it'll be fixed soon, though; once free nationwide calling becomes universal, there will be no reason for numbers to be tied to physical locations anymore.
The idea of local exchanges isn't as dead as people think. The phone network is still made of physical cables, it's just that there are a lot more cell towers replacing the last mile of wiring to the user. When you're in your house your handset is going to connect to the same tower all the time. That's one physical location where you're going to use a lot of minutes. It's legitimate for the phone companies to continue to organize numbers geographically.
So, if you move from Salzburg, Austria to Barcelona, Spain, you will be able to keep your Austrian number ??
Because thats like moving from NY, NY to LA, CA in the USA.
No, I don't think you can do that. You can keep your number within a country, irrespective of where in that country you might choose to move to.
Your example was moving between countries as opposed to states within a single country. The two situations are not the same. In Australia I could buy a phone in Perth and move to Sydney and keep the number - a distance as physically great as probably any move within the continental US.
Also, in the US, for legacy reasons, ALL phone numbers, landline and cell, have an AREA code. For example 214 is DFW, 210 is San Antonio etc.
So even if you move within one state, for example from Dallas to San Antonio, you AREA code won't match where you live anymore, if you want to keep your old cell number.
I can see that is a problem for people with overly tidy minds but in practical terms what is the problem? Are you implying that if you take a cell phone outside the area its area code pertains to it should cease to work or be deactivated?
While it isn't convenient, given how the phone number system works in the USA, porting all numbers, regardless of AREA code leads to a big mess. IMO, it is time to create a pool of cell phone pre-fixes instead of AREA codes.
You are right about changing to cell prefixes.
Here in Europe (as far as I am aware) your prefix relates to your carrier. Those prefixes are recognised as mobile phone prefixes. But if you choose to change carriers your original prefix, being part of your number, goes with you, even though your prefix wont match that which pertains to your new carrier.
While that could be considered a 'mess' I am not aware of it being particularly problematic. I can see what you mean by 'mess' but is it a real problem beyond being just logically untidy?
Your example was moving between countries as opposed to states within a single country. The two situations are not the same.
No they aren't the same but they are a close match. True, the USA is one nation and it consists of several united states vs. Europe, which consists of several union states but is not one nation.
Still, if you say that you can port numbers w/o problems in Europe, well, it isn't correct because you can only port within a state. Whereas in the USA you can port between all states with this workaround.
I can see that is a problem for people with overly tidy minds but in practical terms what is the problem? Are you implying that if you take a cell phone outside the area its area code pertains to it should cease to work or be deactivated?
It messes with the "system". One practical problem is that area codes get exhausted. Area codes are "shared" between landlines and cell phones. I, personally, don't mind the "mess" but it essentially ruins the area code system.
While that could be considered a 'mess' I am not aware of it being particularly problematic. I can see what you mean by 'mess' but is it a real problem beyond being just logically untidy?
I don't know. But if the prefix is carrier dependent and people get different rates for calling phones on different networks then this is probably more annoying than a messy area code system.