Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!husc6!bloom-beacon!think!ames!sdcsvax!ucbvax!delni.DEC.COM!goldstein
From: goldstein@delni.DEC.COM (Fred R. Goldstein dtn226-7388)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: "separate data network" is silly speculation
Message-ID: <8709281346.AA21509@decwrl.dec.com>
Date: Mon, 28-Sep-87 12:32:00 EDT
Article-I.D.: decwrl.8709281346.AA21509
Posted: Mon Sep 28 12:32:00 1987
Date-Received: Wed, 30-Sep-87 05:44:59 EDT
Sender: daemon@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU
Distribution: world
Organization: The ARPA Internet
Lines: 45
Approved: telecom@buit1.bu.edu

Telecom V7I34 carried a message off Telenet by Towson, forwarded by
Gilmore, which quoted "Bell insiders" to the extent that they were
developing a "separate data network".  Thus, reasoned Towson, you would
need two phones if you wanted to run voice and data to your house.

Hogwash.

This is a terribly distorted allusion to the current ISDN Numbering Forum
which is part of the ISDN standardization program.  ISDN, for the
uninitiated, is a telco program which seeks to evolve the public switched 
network to an all-digital model.  The resultant network would provide
64kbps circuit switching and voice (digitized at 64kbps) for about the
same price, over the same lines, and throw in access to X.25 as well.
Fine.  ISDN numbers will, in the US, take the same format as telephone
numbers, so the distinction will be transparent.  Fine; you can upgrade
your analogue line to ISDN and callers won't be the wiser.  BUT what
if you're Telenet or MCI or AT&T and want to allow customers to hook
up to you, directly or via private lines, and thus bypass the local
telephone company at the "terminating" end of the call?

So they set up an ISDN Numbering Forum, under the Exchange Carriers
Standards Association, to try to iron it out.  One faction said that
"non-LECs" (not local exchange carriers, i.e. AT&T) should be given
NXX codes in every area code.  My number is 617-486-7388, but if we
signed up for a bypass net, it might be 617-982-7388 or some such.
The _other_ view is that non-LECs should have separate area codes;
ie, if you are on an ISDN that does not come from the telco, you can
be reached by the telco by dialing area code 300-foo, for example.
The different prefix codes in those area codes would be given to the
carriers to play with.  A proposed compromise was to let some carriers
use NXX codes and some use special NPAs.  Nobody was happy.  

Come 1996 this should be moot because there'll be lots of new area
codes to go around; 1+ dialing will be mandatory and there'll be an
area code 260 someplace, an area code 460, etc. (interchangeable).
It's the transition, when there are few area codes left, that leaves
them hanging.  Do we risk exhausting prefix codes in existing areas
by giving them to random carriers, or do we risk using up area codes
per se by giving _them_ out?

None of this will cause you to need two lines.  ISDN will make it possible
to have 2 or MORE calls at once (packet can share a channel with many
virtual calls) on one line, through your local CO.  When it arrives.
Real Soon Now.
       fred (ISDN Standards: ANSI T1D1 member, DEC)