Path: utzoo!telecom-request Date: 5 Jun 91 22:11:34 GMT From: Nick Sayer Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom Subject: Re: Surprise!! Message-ID: Organization: The Duck Pond, Stockton, CA Sender: Telecom@eecs.nwu.edu 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 426, Message 4 of 10 Lines: 33 sdrc!scjones%thor@uunet.uu.net (Larry Jones) writes: > In article , woody@ucscb.ucsc.edu (Bill > Woodcock) writes: >> Does this mean that after the 415/510 split, we'll be getting free >> unlimited calls to a _different area code_ if we have flat-rate >> service, and are calling back and forth from SF to the East Bay? Does >> that happen anywhere else? > Here in Cincinnati we not only get free unlimited calls to a different > area code, we get free unlimited calls to TWO different area codes in > two different states! Cincinnati Bell is one of the smaller phone > companies and only server the Cincinnati vacinity. Due to the > location of Cincinnati, this includes pieces of southwest Ohio, > northern Kentucky, and southeastern Indiana. Given the post-Greene reality, would it not make a BIT of sense to reform area codes a bit? How about one simple rule: No area code could be in two LATAs? A LATA can have more than one area code, on any boundary convenient to the local BOC, but the area codes within a LATA would be unique to that LATA. Yes, this will make a mess in the short term. In the long term, however, it would become a hell of a lot easier to figure out how your call would be billed. It would also simplify new area code assignment, I would think. Nick Sayer mrapple@quack.sac.ca.us N6QQQ 209-952-5347 (Telebit)