Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!clyde.concordia.ca!rutgers!usc!cs.utexas.edu!mailrus!accuvax.nwu.edu!nucsrl!telecom-request
From: U5434122@ucsvc.ucs.unimelb.edu.au
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Re: Why 8-digit Numbers Are Impossible in North America
Message-ID: <2809@accuvax.nwu.edu>
Date: 12 Jan 90 17:30:52 GMT
Sender: news@accuvax.nwu.edu
Organization: The University of Melbourne
Lines: 54
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 5 of 7


In article <2789@accuvax.nwu.edu>, covert@covert.enet.dec.com (John R. Covert)
writes:

> Daniel O'Callaghan at The University of Melbourne writes:
  
>>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.  
 
> Unfortunately, due to the presence of a large number of No. 5 Crossbar
> central offices throughout North America, changing the length of
> telephone numbers is not technically possible without billions of
> dollars in expenditure in other areas.

> common control offices store the number dialled, the _entire_ number,
> in what is known as an Originating Register.  This is a hardware
> register made out of relays, and it has the capability of storing
> three, seven, or ten digits, plus a flag indicating whether "1" or "0"
> was dialled first.

I am not suggesting that subscribers' numbers be made 8 digits.  What
I propose is that two or more areas are not geographically distinct
and have the same first two digits.  Also, dialling 1+3+7 should be
mandatory for *all* calls, except that '5' is an abbreviation for
'1-225-' and '8' is an abbreviation for '1-228-'.  Only those central
offices in the affected area need to be changed so that the 'flag'
register indicates '1','0','5' or'8'.  All other central offices can
continue quite happliy believing that (225) and (228) are totally
different, and for wiring purposes they can be.  Each central office
in the affected area is in either (225) or (228), in *exactly* the
same way COs were split between (312) and (708) in Chicago.
                 
Is impossible to convert the flag to handle 4 digits?  If these COs
are Stored Program Control Crossbar, can't they be programmed to
substitute 1-225- for '5' and 1-228- for '8' on the first digit?

>>Cellular sevices could all be moved to say 229, allowing easy identification
>>of a number as mobile.
 
> It is not clear that it is desirable for mobile numbers to be identified 
> as mobile numbers.  Why should anyone care?

In Australia the caller pays the charges for calling a mobile number.
The charges are the same as long distance rate 165-745 km, 39c/min
8am-6pm, 26c/min 6pm-10pm and 15c/min 10pm-8am+Saturday night and all
day Sunday.  Since the caller pays, it is nice to know before you ring
the number.  Also, cellular phones are not wasting prefixes in the
normal area codes.


Daniel

u5434122@ucsvc.unimelb.edu.au