Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!accuvax.nwu.edu!nucsrl!telecom-request
From: Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) <cmoore@brl.mil>
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Re: Controversy Over Area Code 213 Split
Message-ID: <2707@accuvax.nwu.edu>
Date: 8 Jan 90 20:01:40 GMT
Sender: news@accuvax.nwu.edu
Organization: TELECOM Digest
Lines: 10
Approved: Telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 10, Issue 14, message 6 of 13


I heard there were some adjustments made along the then-proposed
213/818 border because of communities otherwise facing split along
that border.

I realize this was from the article, but when 310 comes into use, it
will be 8, not 5, years since the 213/818 split.  But that's still
shorter than the 11 1/2 years between N0X/N1X prefixes coming to 213
(covering what is 213 & 818 at this writing) and the 213/818 split.