Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site pur-ee.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!decvax!harpo!eagle!mhuxl!cbosgd!ihnp4!inuxc!pur-ee!notes
From: notes@pur-ee.UUCP
Newsgroups: net.tv
Subject: Re: 555 - (nf)
Message-ID: <1077@pur-ee.UUCP>
Date: Sat, 5-Nov-83 01:29:11 EST
Article-I.D.: pur-ee.1077
Posted: Sat Nov  5 01:29:11 1983
Date-Received: Mon, 7-Nov-83 06:36:46 EST
Sender: notes@pur-ee.UUCP
Organization: Electrical Engineering Department , Purdue University
Lines: 25

#R:ihuxq:-37200:isrnix:14400004:000:1231
isrnix!akp    Nov  4 20:38:00 1983

That's not quite true.  I've seen other 555 numbers listed in the beginning
of the phone book (for things like service, and other phone company things).
Since you say 555-xxxx worked, I would guess that any suffix which isn't
specifically assigned would be programmed to give information.  I seem to
remember hearing that a TV or movie producer-like person could request a
number from the phone company which would sound more realistic than "555-
6724."  After all, now that everybody's on to the gag, it breaks the spell
of realism that TV has to work so hard for, anyway.  The point is that the
number you request is also guaranteed to be a non-number; possibly some less
obvious prefix, or class of prefixes, is reserved for non-numbers.  But
555-xxxx is the cheap way out -- you KNOW without trying that it will be
bogus.

	A side note: The prefix "1" means, "this is a toll call -- SOMEBODY
is going to pay for it."  The prefix "0" means, "I need operator assistance;
it's probably a toll call."  But did you know that you can dial "0-1-number"?
I didn't...  Just another example of Ma Bell idiot-proofing her system, by
forgiving redundancy on the part of the user...

				-- Allan Pratt
			...decvax!pur-ee!iuvax!isrnix!akp