Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!mailrus!wuarchive!texbell!vector!telecom-gateway From: cmoore@BRL.MIL (VLD/VMB) Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom Subject: Re: 8-Digit Phone Numbers vs. More Area Codes Message-ID: Date: 20 Nov 89 16:44:48 GMT Sender: news@vector.Dallas.TX.US Lines: 19 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 526, message 6 of 8 Dave Levenson writes: > (... regarding interchangeable NPA codes...) > you'll never need a leading 1 for > intra-npa calls. Yes in New Jersey. But in Maryland and in area 703 in Virginia, direct-dialed long-distance intra-NPA is 1+NPA+7D (had been NPA+7D from the DC area, 1+7D elsewhere). But leading 1 means that what follows is area code (same as what New Jersey now has). Delaware still has 1+7D for toll calls within it. Presumably this must change to 7D or 1+NPA+7D when N[0/1]X area codes run out. I no longer recall where I saw this (N.Y.Times?), but there was some mention in print of proposed borough code for calls within NYC. This was rejected, and you must instead use the area code on calls across what be- came the 212/718 border. I guess a reason to reject 8-digit numbers is the problem of explaining it to people from outside the area?