Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!bellcore!texbell!vector!telecom-gateway From: cmoore@brl.mil (VLD/VMB) Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom Subject: Statewide Uniformity Message-ID: Date: 31 May 89 20:41:14 GMT Sender: news@vector.Dallas.TX.US Lines: 18 Approved: telecom-request@vector.dallas.tx.us X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@vector.dallas.tx.us X-TELECOM-Digest: volume 9, issue 182, message 3 of 7 Recent messages in telecom say that area code 404 in Georgia is apparently preparing for N0X/N1X prefixes. Does this affect area 912? (912, by the way, is an "easier-to-dial" area code on a dial telephone.) Other cases where a state has 2 area codes, one of which got N0X/N1X prefixes: New Jersey, areas 201 and 609; 201 got N0X/N1X, and the new dialing require- ments also applied to area 609 for statewide uniformity (and later, two N0X/ N1X prefixes were made local to Barnegat, in area 609). Virginia, areas 703 and 804; 703 got N0X/N1X, apparently limited to the DC area suburbs (all but the outermost ones also being reachable in area 202). 804 did NOT get the new dialing requirements (however, DC and Maryland did, so that 703, 202, and 301 all now dial long-distance and 0+ calls the same way). (Did 817 get the same dialing requirements as 214 did when the latter got N0X/N1X?)