Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!swrinde!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!casbah.acns.nwu.edu!nucsrl!telecom-request From: goudreau@dg-rtp.dg.com (Bob Goudreau) Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom Subject: Re: NXX Count (1-15 Message-ID: Date: 19 Feb 91 16:58:33 GMT Sender: news@casbah.acns.nwu.edu Organization: TELECOM Digest Lines: 26 Approved: Telecom@eecs.nwu.edu X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 11, Issue 133, Message 9 of 11 Originator: telecom@delta.eecs.nwu.edu In article , tropix!moscom!de@uu.psi.com (Dave Esan) writes: > I have not included the 52? series of area codes that are in use for > Mexico, since they are not yet dialable from the US. ... > I have not included the 82? series of area codes which include many > more Mexico exchanges, as well as the non-diable locations in the > NANP. Could you please elaborate on the 82X series of area codes? I had thought that the 52X codes were going to be offered as a short-cut way to dial Mexico; every Mexican number could be dialed as either 011-52-XXXXXXXX, or as 1-52X-XXX-XXXX. (Though I'm not sure why they're even bothering to provide a short-cut that saves us a mere two digits.) Why then is there a need for 82X area codes? Also, what do you mean by "non-dialable locations in the NANP"? Bob Goudreau +1 919 248 6231 Data General Corporation goudreau@dg-rtp.dg.com 62 Alexander Drive ...!mcnc!rti!xyzzy!goudreau Research Triangle Park, NC 27709, USA