TELECOM Digest OnLine - Sorted: Followup to 'Recommended' Exchange Names

Followup to 'Recommended' Exchange Names

TELECOM Digest Editor (
Sun, 26 Mar 2006 17:10:16 -0500 (EST)

Here is another piece, this one on 'recommended' exchange names.

From: (Ken Elgart)
Subject: Re: Recommended "EXchange" Names
Date: Tue, 10 Sep 1996 09:23:31 -0400

In the Telecom Archives file 'exchange.names.recommended' Mark
J. Cuccia <> wrote:

> The following is a list of *recommended* names for dialable/quotable
> telephone EXchange names...

As a follow-up to your post of the list of recommended exchange names
(which I tried in vain to track down while I was employed at Western
Electric) I thought I'd add some observations from that job and from my
student days at the University of Buffalo. When I lived in Buffalo the area
had 2L-4N dialing and my phone number (PArkside 6755) was dialed PA
(72)-6755 but residents of Rochester which had DDD To Buffalo (and, I
suspect, long distance operators) were instructed to dial the first *3*
letters of the exchange name, thus to reach me they would dial PAR

While at WE I looked up, as a matter of curiosity, the office drawings of
the last manual CO to convert to dial in New York City where I grew up.
When the CIty Island 8 central office was converted the new exchange was
ordered and installed as the TUlip 5 exchange but between installation and
cutover New York Telephone decided to switch from exchange names to
arbitrary 2-Letter combinations and it appeared in the new telephone
directory as TT 5 which is dialed exactly the same as TUlip 5. The dial
conversion could in fact have been done without changing the exchange name
as people elsewhere in New York City had been dialing CIty Island 8 for
years, reaching a call indicator in front of the inward operator at CIty
Island 8 who completed the call without their being aware that an operator
was involved in the call.

From ptownson Tue Sep 10 11:33:14 1996
Return-Path: <>
Received: by (8.7.4/NSCS-1.0S)
id LAA06494; Tue, 10 Sep 1996 11:33:14 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from relay2.UU.NET by (8.7.4/NSCS-1.0S)
id LAA06481; Tue, 10 Sep 1996 11:33:10 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from by relay2.UU.NET with ESMTP
(peer crosschecked as: [])
id QQbgos15481; Tue, 10 Sep 1996 11:32:47 -0400 (EDT)
Received: (from news@localhost) by (8.7.5/8.7.1) id KAA00096; Tue, 10 Sep 1996 10:31:15 -0500 (CDT)
Path: comp!plaws
From: (Peter Laws)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Re: Recommended "EXchange" Names
Date: 10 Sep 1996 15:31:15 GMT
Organization: The University of Arkansas
Lines: 16
Message-ID: <5141k3$>
References: <>
Status: RO

Mark J. Cuccia <> writes:

> Please note that the 55x, 57x, 95x and 97x ranges are not included. In
> the original list, it states "Reserved for Radiotelephone Service".


> As for "Radiotelephone" service in the 55, 57, 95, 97 (JKL/PRS/WXY) ranges,
> I do remember many older mobile phones had ID numbers of the form "KK-xxxx"
> or "WJ-xxxx", etc.

Sure. W and K are two of the radio callsign series assigned to the USA,
the others being AA-AL and N. Those last two were almost exclusively
military or government until the last 20 years or so.

Peter "stuck in prefix 579" Laws

Post Followup Article Use your browser's quoting feature to quote article into reply
Go to Next message: TELECOM Digest Editor: "From our Archives: "Recommended" Exchange Names"
Go to Previous message: TELECOM Digest Editor: "From Our Archives: Exchange Names in St. Louis"
Next in thread: "Re: Followup to 'Recommended' Exchange Names"
May be reply: "Re: Followup to 'Recommended' Exchange Names"
TELECOM Digest: Home Page