Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!accuvax.nwu.edu!nucsrl!telecom-request From: Mark Brader Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom Subject: Running Out of Area Codes, and How to Dial Long Distance Message-ID: <2486@accuvax.nwu.edu> Date: 30 Dec 89 07:47:26 GMT Sender: news@accuvax.nwu.edu Organization: TELECOM Digest Lines: 59 Approved: Telecom@eecs.nwu.edu X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 9, Issue 601, message 3 of 7 Our moderator writes: > ... area codes *as we know them* will be used up is 1995. I think 1993 > might be a better estimate. From that point on, area codes will resemble > prefixes, and dialing 1 before long distance numbers everywhere will > be mandatory. ... Presumably by "long distance" he meant here "to another area code". The thing that most distresses me about this whole area-code-exhaustion business is that it'll mean that we'll LOSE the possibility of a leading 1 ACTUALLY meaning, as it still does where I am, "long distance". Here, we dial NNX-XXXX for local calls, 1-NNX-XXXX for long distance within our area, and 1 + 10 digits for other area codes (I'll call this "Syntax 1"). Now, we're about to run out of NNX prefixes in 416, which means that the 1 + 7 digits syntax becomes ambiguous and has to be dropped. Bell Canada then has two options. They could drop the "leading 1 means long distance" rule, and we'd dial 7 digits within the area no matter whether local or not, and 1 + 10 digits outside ("Syntax 2"). Or they could drop the "no area code required within area" rule, and we'd dial 7 digits for local calls and 1 + 10 digits for long distance no matter whether within the area or not ("Syntax 3"). Bell Canada has actually elected to go to Syntax 3, and I personally am most pleased that they have done so. (The effective date is sometime in March, I believe.) But it appears to me from reading this forum that Syntax 2 is rather more common in other parts of North America. In Syntax 2 places, you have to know which prefixes in your area code are local calls and which are not -- or in some cases, the sharp division of calls into local (free) and long distance (not free) doesn't exist. Of course Syntax 2 does have the advantage that it can be used where the local calling area is larger than the local area code. To be complete I should mention Syntax 4, which I think was formerly common and is becoming rare: leading 1 is never used, and one dials NNX-XXXX for any call within one's area, 10 digits for calls to other areas. It only works in areas where all exchanges are NXX. And finally, there are the variants of Syntax 1, 2, or 3 where the leading 1 is replaced by some other access code, such as the 112 mentioned as having been used until recently in B.C.; I remember that Toronto used to use 112 about 20 years ago, too. Now, finally, my question. Can anyone comment on the relative prevalence of the four syntaxes that I have called 1, 2, 3, and 4 in North America, or better yet, actually provide a list of what areas use what syntax? (Note: My interest here is in major operating companies, not, say, Pinnacles.) Mark Brader "It can be amusing, even if painful, to watch the SoftQuad Inc., Toronto ethnocentrism of those who are convinced their utzoo!sq!msb, msb@sq.com local standards are universal." -- Tom Chapin