Directories
Telecom databases and directories, updated weekly directly from our database
Directories
Directories
Telecom databases and directories, updated weekly directly from our database
Telecom databases and directories, updated weekly directly from our database
Telecom databases and directories, updated weekly directly from our database
Prefix:
Calling Code:
ISO3:
TADIG:
MCCMNC:
Type:
Location:
Operator Brand:
Operator Company:
Operator Group:
Total Length Min:
Total Length Max:
Weight:
Source:
This is not a valid phone number.
Did you remember to include the country code? For example, 441133910781.
There was an error processing your request.
Examples:
We've released the tools on www.e164.com for free.
Although we didn't produce the update page on the website in May, we have been keeping the e164 database current, updated and released at least every Monday (around 10am UTC). Because of this the update entry is a bit long as we catch up the website readers to database subscribers.
These network names were added during May. We had a large number of code optimisations and coding changes that manage the way we receive numbering updates.
Some companies may have existed before under alternative names.
Some companies may have existing in other regions but their inclusion here signifies an entrance into a new territory.
** Add these prefixes to your block list in the short term.**
Each update we track if all prefixes from one company have been moved to a new company. This can highlight M&A activity, or a company leaving a geographical market.
Aggregated across the weekly changelogs for 19 Apr – 07 Jun 2026 (7 issues). 28 movements detected, alphabetised by originating company.
If you need instant access to the e164 numbering plan for every country, integration to your systems, and the lowest possible latency, you can download e164’s full dataset.
Don't receive your updates too late, make sure you’re subscribed to this free weekly newsletter.
Every country has phone numbers that can't be dialled from abroad. Almost no regulator publishes which ones.
Take Poland. You can download the regulator's numbering plan as XML or CSV. You get the operator name and the last modification date. That's it. No flag for which mobile ranges are reachable internationally and which aren't. Carriers that care have built their own internal documents to fill the gap. It's not just Poland. This is the norm.
Short codes. Premium rate ranges a regulator has restricted from international origination. Operator test ranges. Local government numbers only usable from inside the country. Specific allocations the regulator has marked for domestic use only. The regulator knows. The operator knows. The published plan, overwhelmingly, does not say.
When a transit carrier routes an international call, that invisibility costs money. The call either fails silently (burning interconnect capacity on traffic that was never going to complete) or it lands on whatever the operator does with unreachable numbers, which is sometimes a fraud trap. Artificially Inflated Traffic schemes love a deallocated, restricted, or shouldn't-have-been-dialled range that still generates a billing event.
Earlier this month we wrote about Origin Based Rating, and the fundamental problem that no one in the call chain agrees on a single source of numbering truth. This is the same problem with a different face.
OBR punishes you for routing a call from the "wrong" origin. The absence of a domestic-accessibility flag punishes you for routing a call to the "wrong" destination. Both share the same cause: the published reference doesn't contain enough information for a transit carrier to demonstrate due diligence.
There's a proposal gaining traction in the international voice industry to add a new column to the ITU's E.129 numbering plan template: Domestic Accessibility Only. A simple flag: yes means the range is not intended to be reachable from abroad. Most rows stay blank. The flagged ones are the ones a carrier actually needs to know about.
At least one operator has already solved it for their own network. . The question is whether every other operator has to build it independently, or whether the regulator, who controls the allocation in the first place, publishes it once.
The regulator is the right owner here. They decide which ranges go where, and which are intended for internal use only. Every other entity in the call chain is guessing.
The proposal needs ITU endorsement and a nudge to each national regulator. The ITU itself can't compel member states to submit numbering updates. That's a structural limitation of the treaty, not a bureaucratic one, so the path to adoption is slow unless the industry maintains pressure.
The counter-argument we keep hearing from regulators is that publishing what's domestically-restricted tips off fraudsters. It doesn't. Fraudsters generate and spoof numbers regardless of what regulators publish; what they don't do is build international fraud detection. Carriers do, and right now they're building it blindfolded. Transparency helps the defenders far more than the attackers.
We flag what we can at e164.com. Where a regulator quietly notes a range is domestic-only, where an operator tells us, where our own testing confirms a range doesn't complete internationally, we mark it. We haven't yet exposed this to e164 subscribers, but it's coming. That's a workaround while the industry moves towards a standardised field that everyone can point to.
If your fraud team, your routing team, or your billing team has spotted a range that shouldn't be reachable from abroad (and is), we want to know. Email support@e164.com. You don't need to be a paying subscriber. Your anomaly is someone else's exposure.
A standardised column won't fix wholesale voice on its own. But it's one of the cheapest, most tractable wins available, and the industry is lining up behind it. Now we need the regulators.
Total number of existing prefixes which have changed companies: 6,912
Total number of completely new prefixes: 7,099
Total number of removed prefixes: 2,213
Total numbering plan prefix changes this week: 16,224
** Add these prefixes to your block list in the short term.**
Each update we track if all prefixes from one company have been moved to a new company. This can highlight M&A activity, or a company leaving a geographical market.
If you need instant access to the e164 numbering plan for every country, integration to your systems, and the lowest possible latency, you can download e164’s full dataset.
Don't receive your updates too late, make sure you’re subscribed to this free weekly newsletter.
If you want to jump to this week's numbering updates, skip the OBR section....
Origin Based Rating was always going to be a problem. When a major operator first introduced it — widely understood to compensate for declining mobile termination rates — the industry pushed back hard. The prediction that the industry had at the time was clear: this would create systemic headaches across the wholesale voice chain. That prediction is, unfortunately, coming of age.
Now the huge USA carrier AT&T has joined in with OBR. They've introduced a 19-cent surcharge for calls delivered with an "invalid" CLI, and additional charges for calls delivered towards numbers that aren't AT&T's. On paper, that sounds reasonable. In practice, it's a real problem.
Invalid according to whom? AT&T's view of which CLIs are valid and which aren't is based on their own interpretation of the global numbering plan, which changes frequently, and they aren't sharing which prefixes they attribute to which origination networks, nor which prefixes are invalid (and number length, don't forget number length...). So the carrier imposing the surcharge won't allow you to pre-determine the prefixes the surcharge is based on.
If AT&T is surcharging for calls to "non-AT&T" numbers, what happens when a number has been ported to AT&T from Verizon? Is that an AT&T number or not? What about an AT&T-native number that's been ported out to T-Mobile? Which network is the B-number surcharge added to — the original allocating network, or the current serving network?
Do all originating, and transit, carriers need to check the MNP status of a destination number to see if they are transiting towards the USA in case the number is (or now is-not) an AT&T number?
Here's where it gets painful: The transit carrier sitting in the middle of the call chain has no say in how the terminating carrier classifies the traffic, and possibly no visibility into why a particular CLI was surcharged. They route a call in good faith, and an invoice arrives with line items they can't predict or prevent.
The prudent carrier may negotiate with AT&T for a reject-rather-than-surcharge model; if a call would trigger a surcharge, reject it at the interconnect so the transit carrier can re-route or drop it rather than eating an unexpected charge. It's a pragmatic workaround, but it's a workaround, not a solution.
The i3 Forum's Numbering Plan community has identified 174 unique OBR category entries across the industry — and that's after manual deduplication. These are categories where your call may or may not fall into, depending on if the prefix of the calling number is bucketed into that category by the terminating carrier's team.
Categories vary wildly from operator to operator: "Zone A", "Zone 0", "fractional zone", buckets that change with every vendor deal. Italy alone has 5 different OBR rates depending on origination. Germany has "rest-of-world" plus "Zones 1" through 4, separately for mobile and fixed. Portugal to France? 81 OBR categories.
NANPA assigns roughly 450 validation codes for US origination groups, but when carriers implement these to check OBR origination zones, the numbers don't match. One operator maps to 450 non-surcharge US codes for terminating to Germany. Another maps it to 410. Same traffic, same destination — different classification, different price. I imagine the transit carriers are very closely cross checking all possible onward-routing OBR fineprint. Unfortunately this isn't an edge case, it's the norm because different carriers use different numbering plans.
Here's the irony. By surcharging based on CLI origin, OBR creates a direct financial incentive to spoof CLIs. If a call from a high-rate origin country can be made to look like it's from a low-rate country, the carrier would avoid the surcharge by changing the CLI. CLI spoofing to game OBR is already a known problem (Orange Wholesale are even naming traffic routed via SIMboxes as "OBR fraud"). When spoofed CLIs are caught, the carrier gets billed at the maximum rate, triggering 90-day billing disputes.
And what happens when an invalid CLI surcharge catches a spoofed number that the transit carrier had no way of knowing was spoofed? The transit carrier pays for someone else's fraud.
The fundamental problem isn't AT&T's pricing. It's that the call chain — the originating carrier, the transit carrier(s), the terminating carrier — don't agree to a single, authoritative source of numbering truth.
Every carrier maintains its own view of which number ranges belong to which operator, in which country, on which network. These views diverge. They're updated on different schedules, sourced from different databases, and interpreted through different commercial lenses. The result is a system where two parties can look at the same CLI and reach legitimately different conclusions about its validity. I can't begin to imagine the billing inconsistencies along the call-chain.
What's needed is a unified, industry-standard numbering plan — a shared reference that transit carriers can validate against to demonstrate due diligence. Not to eliminate commercial disagreements, but to establish a common baseline. If a transit carrier can show they verified a CLI against a recognised, regularly-updated numbering authority before routing the call, that should count for something when a surcharge lands on their invoice for a call from a phone number that isn't possible in a far-off foreign land.
The ITU should be the place for this - that's why we regularly promote timely updates from nation states to the ITU. Unfortunately the speed at which nation states work is not as urgent as the industry's requirement for a unified dial plan.
The i3 Forum's numbering work group is helping push this direction, solidifying behind the ITU's E.129 format template. But the pace needs to pick up. AT&T's surcharges aren't going away. Other terminating carriers will follow. The transit carriers caught in the middle need a defensible position, and that starts with a numbering plan everyone can point to.
We built e164.com because we didn't know whether the industry can build the shared infrastructure before everyone falls out and the surcharges make the current model unsustainable. We think the correct unified place for the data is the ITU directly, and we spoke in person at UN ITU HQ in February pushing for timely updates from regulators and state departments to share numbering allocations to the ITU. However, whilst we continue to build the future completeness of the ITU data with nation states, we need an industry numbering plan that can be relied upon to be accurate today.
It didn't look like anyone else was going to commit to building the data, so we went ahead and took on the challenge. We have a long list of industry people who said this wasn't possible, but a list of people saying something is impossible is a great motivator.
Our model is that we're the most accurate numbering plan for the telecoms industry right now. We take on-board all feedback, our team investigates every edge case, we push for the industry's requirement for numbering transparency.
No we can't detect a spoofed number from a valid number range, but we certainly highlight when a CLI is invalid, or a Premium Rate call. We can do that for every country in the world.
We're promoting our team as your outsourced investigating team for anomalies - because your anomaly is the industry's anomaly and it will affect everyone.
Numbering investigations chew up team's time like nothing else - backwards and forwards between inter-connected carriers, talks with the regulator and small tweaks to the numbering plan every week.
NB: email support@e164.com with anomalies or feedback - you don't need to be a paid subscriber to our numbering data, and we have a lot of connections we can talk to when investigating your query.
We all know how quickly numbering plans change - just look at the average number of updates we track every week (22k this week!). You can see that a single numbering plan, with a dedicated team managing your numbering plan view which aligns with everyone else's numbering plan view, is one of the most valuable datasets in telecoms.
We publish the e164 dataset every week, available to download, in full, automatically for subscribers to their fraud systems, billing systems and own numbering data.
Total number of existing prefixes which have changed companies: 11,671
Total number of completely new prefixes: 10,676
Total number of removed prefixes: 284
Total numbering plan prefix changes this week: 22,631
** Add these prefixes to your block list in the short term.**
Each update we track if all prefixes from one company have been moved to a new company. This can highlight M&A activity, or a company leaving a geographical market.
If you need instant access to the e164 numbering plan for every country, integration to your systems, and the lowest possible latency, you can download e164’s full dataset.
Don't receive your updates too late, make sure you’re subscribed to this free weekly newsletter.
Following a download customer complaint, we found some German numbers were sometimes being incorrectly rejected, despite the e164 data being generously in line with the allocated number ranges in Germany plus additional digit length.
After some back and forward between the e164 team, the client, a transit carrier, and Telekom Deutschland, we found that the previous "overdialling" rules had not been wide enough.
Overdialling requirement: A German interconnect provider might send 496927xxx-x as the calling party number, where 496927xxx is the real subscriber number and the trailing digits represent the caller's internal extension. This is standard practice for some German enterprises — the switchboard number is sent in the P-Asserted-Identity header so return calls reach the central number, even when calling from an individual extension, but sometimes it is also possible to dial the extended number (including the extension) and be connected directly to the extension.
Previous fix (Oct 2025): Our previous approach was a blanket override extending German geographic numbers up to a maximum of 13 digits. However, due to the setup in the German numbering plan and previous short-length allocations before the liberalization of the telecoms market, this caused prefix collisions. A single number could match multiple providers at different prefix lengths, making reliable routing impossible. For example, 4932991xxxxxx was matching three separate prefixes (493, 4932, and 4932991) because the override extended all of them to 13 digits, even though they are different operators for this same prefix depending on the telephone number length.
The new fix: We redesigned the blanket Germany override with a collision-safe overdialling algorithm:
For example for phone number 4932991xxxxxx:
Prefix
Allocated Max Length
New Overdialling Max Length
Note
493
7
9
Capped max: child 4932 starts at 10
4932
11
12
Capped max: child 4932991 starts at 13
4932991
13
15
Full max: full +2 extension
Result: All previously reported mismatches now resolve to a single, correct provider match. If you have a key to download the whole e164 database, you will find data has been automatically updated this week.
As always you can test phone numbers against the live e164 dataset on the website, for example: www.e164.com/4932991111111
Open questions we are investigating - please let us know if you have any input on these:
We would very much welcome feedback from newsletter subscribers on any of these points above.
Total number of existing prefixes which have changed companies: 357,384
Total number of completely new prefixes: 106,733
Total number of removed prefixes: 1,870
Total numbering plan prefix changes this week: 465,987
** Add these prefixes to your block list in the short term.**
Each update we track if all prefixes from one company have been moved to a new company. This can highlight M&A activity, or a company leaving a geographical market.
If you need instant access to the e164 numbering plan for every country, integration to your systems, and the lowest possible latency, you can download e164’s full dataset.
Don't receive your updates too late, make sure you’re subscribed to this free weekly newsletter.
Total number of existing prefixes which have changed companies: 1,561
Total number of completely new prefixes: 70,638
Total number of removed prefixes: 825
Total numbering plan prefix changes this week: 73,024
** Add these prefixes to your block list in the short term.**
Each update we track if all prefixes from one company have been moved to a new company. This can highlight M&A activity, or a company leaving a geographical market.
If you need instant access to the e164 numbering plan for every country, integration to your systems, and the lowest possible latency, you can download e164’s full dataset.
Don't receive your updates too late, make sure you’re subscribed to this free weekly newsletter.
