phone types

[ginny listman]

I neglected to mention, we have two fields, phone_number and phone_ext.
That said, is there still a problem?

On Wed, 27 Dec 2000, Mike Lieberman wrote:

> On Wed, 27 Dec 2000, Ginny Listman, ARIN wrote:
> >
> > As I look at what is currently stored in the phone fields of
> > the current
> > database, making the above assumption/conversion seems reasonable.  A
> > phone number should be a phone number, and not have other
> > info stored with
> > it.
> 
> Why? If extensions are necessary to work one's way through a PBX or a PIN for
> a pager, or a web address for a text paging terminal... why is a number
> always a number?
> 
> When calling during non-business hours, many "numbers" aren't useful with
> extra information, such as the proper extension, or after hours contact
> options.
> 
> Frequently the "POC" is not known as the POC by the company PBX 'operator'
> and is certainly not designated as such by the dialing options on the pbx.
> While the 'role' remains, people change, different 'desks' get assigned to
> the 'role' over the years.
> 
> We have found the 'simple' phone number to be of marginal value many times.
>