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: California Senate Passes "Area Code Bill"
Message-ID: <3471@accuvax.nwu.edu>
Date: 2 Feb 90 14:58:53 GMT
Sender: news@accuvax.nwu.edu
Organization: TELECOM Digest
Lines: 16
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 72, message 4 of 16


What constitutes notice of the area code change?  The insertions in
people's phone bills?  The notices in this Digest are very early
(213/310 notice reached me Dec. 15, 1989, 2 years and 1 1/2 months
before it takes effect) but this is a small and scattered audience
compared to the people getting the new area code.  This problem of
splitting communities occurred with 213/818 split, as I recall
reading.

As is the case in New York City, you have to dial the area code even
on local calls across NPA boundary.  Notice that 212/718 split is
along borough lines and is along waterways, and I am not sure that
even the 213/818 split was along "natural" borders -- certainly not
waterways.