Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!netsys!vector!telecom-gateway From: halliday@cc.ubc.ca (laura halliday) Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom Subject: Re: NNX-0000 Message-ID: Date: 13 Jul 89 16:30:00 GMT Sender: news@vector.Dallas.TX.US Lines: 23 Approved: telecom-request@vector.dallas.tx.us X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@vector.dallas.tx.us X-TELECOM-Digest: volume 9, issue 239, message 8 of 11 In TELECOM Digest V9 #234, Kent Borg asks: > Why are NNX-0000 (I hope I have the N's and X's straight) numbers so > rare? Assuming that the interdiction stemmed from an oddity of step-by-step switching, I asked my Dad, who worked for BCTel from the early 1950's until his retirement in the mid 1980's, and was part of the team that converted Vancouver to automatic switching. For reasons that were never clear (testing purposes?), the position in Strowger switches that corresponded to NNX-0000 was left blank, and calls could not be completed to such a number. Now, of course, any number is fair game, but there are still echos of this. For example, a system used at BCTel to keep track of service orders could not process an order for NNX-9999 or NNX-0000, as it used such numbers internally as sentinels. Speaking of local calling areas, though Vancouver's is largish, there are some *huge* calling areas in the interior of B.C. You can phone from Baker Creek, B.C. (604-249) to Macalister (604-993) on a local call. The road distance is approximately 80 miles, but due to the sparse population the entire area is served by only 4 telephone prefixes. ...laura halliday, University of B.C.