Path: utzoo!censor!geac!torsqnt!hybrid!scifi!bywater!uunet!bu.edu!telecom-request From: jdominey@bsga05.attmail.com Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom Subject: Equal Access / 800 NXX Assignments Message-ID: Date: 26 Feb 91 19:32:39 GMT Sender: news@bu.edu.bu.edu Organization: TELECOM Digest Lines: 28 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 164, Message 6 of 13 In issue #159 our Moderator made a small slip: >> If AT&T did install an 800 number I can guarentee you the same people who >> now block 10xxx would figure out a way to block 800-ATT-#### or else >> tack a tidy surcharge on for themselves. PAT] For reasons best known to Bellcore, I suppose, the 288 NXX for 800 service was assigned to MCI! Presumably the same reasoning assigned 624 to AT&T. I have to wonder, though, how MCI got custody of 333, 444, 666, 777, 888, and 999. Anyone have the inside story on how these numbers are doled out? And on a related topic, what's the current status of efforts to make 800 numbers 'portable' from one interexchange carrier to another? Jack Dominey AT&T Commercial Marketing, Tucker GA voice: 404-496-6925 AT&T Mail: !dominey [Moderator's Note: AT&T had 800-624 a long time before MCI got 800-288. Bellcore hands out *what is left* of the unused 800 prefixes. Remember, AT&T had that service for many years before MCI came on the scene, and as a result, a very large (lion's share, really) arbitrary selection of codes assigned by themselves. Following the breakup, AT&T kept the ones they had and took more as well. PAT]