Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!unmvax!pprg.unm.edu!hc!lll-winken!netsys!vector!telecom-gateway From: westmark!dave@rutgers.edu (Dave Levenson) Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom Subject: Re: 1+areacode Message-ID: Date: 12 Feb 89 05:19:24 GMT Sender: news@vector.UUCP Organization: Westmark, Inc., Warren, NJ, USA Lines: 29 Approved: telecom-request@vector.uucp X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@vector.uucp X-TELECOM-Digest: volume 9, issue 59, message 3 of 6 In article , unet!unet.UUCP!maine@ames.arc.nasa.gov (Dennis J. W. Maine) writes: > I haven't seen any mention of adding some reasonable hueristics to > the number decoding algorithm. It seems logical that if the phone > company can detect the omission of a leading 1 digit and request > that you redial the number adding the one, it could also do it for you. > Why would anyone enter 10 digits in a given time interval without > specifying the area code. We are talking user-surly programming. ... yes, but... The costs of Mr. Maine's suggestion are not particularly user-friendly, either. If the telco equipment must apply a time-out on every 7-digit call, just in case the user is planning to dial a 10-digit number, the call-setup delays incurred on every local call will be annoying to those of us who have already mastered the difficult art of dialing a leading 1 for an area code. Moreover, the increased register holding time of several seconds per call, for every local call dialed, will increase the number of registers required per central office. Registers cost money. The local rate-payer may feel that he/she is already paying enough... I certainly do! -- Dave Levenson Westmark, Inc. The Man in the Mooney Warren, NJ USA {rutgers | att}!westmark!dave