Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!ns-mx!ceres!dino!ux1.cso.uiuc.edu!uwm.edu!mailrus!accuvax.nwu.edu!nucsrl!telecom-request
From: johnl@esegue.segue.boston.ma.us (John R. Levine)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Re: Answer to Area Code Congestion
Message-ID: <2806@accuvax.nwu.edu>
Date: 10 Jan 90 23:11:21 GMT
Sender: news@accuvax.nwu.edu
Organization: Segue Software, Cambridge MA
Lines: 31
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 23, message 2 of 7

In article <2748@accuvax.nwu.edu> you write:

>Here is a way to ease area code congestion without being too difficult
>to implement in North America.  It basically means that the affected
>area switches to 8 digit numbers without any other area needing to
>know.  ...

It seems to be difficult for people from other countries to understand
how deeply ingrained 3+7 digit phone numbers are in North America.  It
is not practical to suggest that we change to anything different.
Both central office equipment and premises equipment such as PBXes,
memory dialers, toll restrictors, etc. have the 7 and 10 digit lengths
wired in.

Also, now that every dialable phone number in North America has been
ten digits since about 1955, an entire generation has grown up with
3+7 numbers and it's ingrained in our dialing fingers.  I'm 35 and I
don't remember anything else.

By the way, on another thread, I suspect that the reason that some
areas are going to 1+NPA+number rather than just the number for
intra-NPA toll calls is due to the limitations of old exchanges that
need a leading 1 for tandem access.  As noted elsewhere, toll charging
is complicated enough that "dial 1 for toll" really isn't very
meaningful any more.


Regards,
John Levine, johnl@esegue.segue.boston.ma.us, {spdcc|ima|lotus}!esegue!johnl

PS:  Didn't mention Caller ID at all.  Oops, did it again.  :-)