Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!ames!netsys!vector!nobody From: cmoore@BRL.MIL (VLD/VMB) Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom Subject: timeout on 0+ Message-ID: Date: 3 Feb 89 17:46:02 GMT Sender: chip@vector.UUCP Lines: 16 Approved: telecom-request@vector.uucp X-Submissions-To: telecom@bu-cs.bu.edu X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@vector.uucp X-TELECOM-Digest: volume 9, issue 48, message 6 On direct-dial, you apparently NEVER depend on timeout. But on some cases of 0+, you do: 0 by itself will time out and call your local operator. I noticed 0+number in use, according to the phone book, in 213 area after introduction of N0X/N1X prefixes and before the 213/818 split; only the timeout distinguished between, say, 0-413-xxxx and 0-413-xxx-xxxx (this was just about my very first note to Telecom!), and this is still in use, right? The 2nd area to get N0X/N1X prefixes was New York City (then all in 212), and in late 1980 I noticed that 0+ within 212 now required 0+212+number (area code 212 was printed on the instruction card for this). The explanation received via Telecom was that some of the New York equipment couldn't handle the 0-xxx-xxxx stuff via timeout, so the area code requirement was put in for areacode-wide uniformity.