|
|
Message Digest
Volume 29 : Issue 38 : "text" Format
Messages in this Issue:
Washington DC Metro (was Overlays and Dialing Plans)
Re: Great Movie Telephone Sounds
Re: Overlays and Dialing Plans (was at&t vs. Verizon TV Ads)
Re: Status of 737 area code
Re: Status of 737 area code
Re: Overlays and Dialing Plans (was at&t vs. Verizon TV Ads)
Re: Overlays and Dialing Plans
NJ 609/856 (was: Overlays and Dialing Plans)
Re: Status of the 737 Area Code
Re: Status of 737 area code
Re: Overlays and Dialing Plans (was at&t vs. Verizon TV Ads)
Nunavut Territory in Canada
New NYC area code: (929)
====== 28 years of TELECOM Digest -- Founded August 21, 1981 ======
Telecom and VOIP (Voice over Internet Protocol) Digest for the
Internet. All contents here are copyrighted by Patrick Townson and
the individual writers/correspondents. Articles may be used in other
journals or newsgroups, provided the writer's name and the Digest are
included in the fair use quote. By using -any name or email address-
included herein for -any- reason other than responding to an article
herein, you agree to pay a hundred dollars to the recipients of the
email.
===========================
Addresses herein are not to be added to any mailing list, nor to be
sold or given away without explicit written consent. Chain letters,
viruses, porn, spam, and miscellaneous junk are definitely unwelcome.
We must fight spam for the same reason we fight crime: not because we
are naive enough to believe that we will ever stamp it out, but because
we do not want the kind of world that results when no one stands
against crime. Geoffrey Welsh
===========================
See the bottom of this issue for subscription and archive details
and the name of our lawyer, and other stuff of interest.
Date: Fri, 05 Feb 2010 23:47:24 -0700
From: "Anthony Bellanga" <anthonybellanga@gonetoearth.com>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Washington DC Metro (was Overlays and Dialing Plans)
Message-ID: <WorldClient-F201002052347.AA47240268@gonetoearth.com>
On Friday 05-February-2010, Julian Thomas wrote:
> Years back there used to be protected dialling in the Washington DC
> metro area covering neighboring MD and Va. Is this still the case,
> or is it all 10 digit by now?
In October 1990, calls CROSSING the Potomoc (i.e., between DC/202 and
northern VA/703, as well as between MD/301 and northern VA/703), also
crossing the DC/202 <=> northern VA/703 boundary became mandatory
ten-digits. It is still a local (not toll) call, but almost twenty years
ago, it became mandatory ten-digits.
About a year later, in Fall 1991, Maryland had an area code split, the
Baltimore/eastern part changing to 410, while the western part including
the suburbs of DC retained 301.
In 1995, 703 was split (again, the earlier split of 703 was in June 1973
when the entire state's 703 was split with 804 for southeastern VA), the
new area code being 540, shrinking 703 down to just the extended
northern VA suburbs of DC.
In Summer 1997, the entire state of Maryland became mandatory ten-digit
dialing for local calls. 301 was overlaid with 240; 410 was overlaid with
443. There are two pending further overlays, but the implementation dates
are still TBD -- 301/240/(227) and 410/443/(667).
In March 2000, 703 for the extended northern VA suburbs of VA was overlaid
with 571, along with mandatory ten-digit local dialing.
SO, presently the ONLY 7D local dialing allowed in the Washington DC metro
area is for calls STRICTLY WITHIN 202/DC itself. ALL other local calls,
within the MD sub, within the VA sub, and between any of the three (MD,
VA, DC) are mandatory ten-digits, although still local (not toll).
Intra-202/DC dialing is PERMISSIVE 10-digits, but 7-digits still works but
only for that limited region.
It will still be a few years before 202/DC needs relief. But I seriously
doubt that Verizon, the wireless providers, and the CLECs would propose
a split of 202/DC. Expect that 202/DC will be overlaid at that time, and
the currently permissive 10-digit intra-202/DC local dialing will become
mandatory, and thus no more 7-digit intra-202/DC local dialing.
A/B
Date: Fri, 05 Feb 2010 23:42:33 -0800
From: Sam Spade <sam@coldmail.com>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: Great Movie Telephone Sounds
Message-ID: <J39bn.79156$CM7.48347@newsfe04.iad>
hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com wrote:
> On Feb 5, 5:11 pm, Sam Spade <s...@coldmail.com> wrote:
>> Does anyone know whether the BOCs added tone dialing to the front
>> end of any of their SXS offices? Or, did they limit it to 5XBARs?
>
> The Bell Labs history book, vol 1925-1975 Switching, has
> considerable details about the implementation of Touch Tone in
> various kinds of offices. They developed several different units
> for SxS offices; the units varied by cost and quality. IIRC, the
> choice of unit depended on traffic volume and expected life before
> convesion to a more modern office.
Thanks. I have the early years edition on a bookshelf right beside
me. I don't recall whether I ever bought the 1925-1975 edition. I
should go look around.
Date: Fri, 05 Feb 2010 23:44:48 -0800
From: Sam Spade <sam@coldmail.com>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: Overlays and Dialing Plans (was at&t vs. Verizon TV Ads)
Message-ID: <Q59bn.79157$CM7.66811@newsfe04.iad>
John Mayson wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 5, 2010 at 3:57 PM, Sam Spade <sam@coldmail.com> wrote:
>
>> When it was the orignal 714 NPA you could make a 7 digit call from
>> the town of Chula Vista on the Mexican border to all of the San
>> Diego area, all of Orange County, all of the metro Inland Empire,
>> Palm Springs area, east to Arizona, and up the Eastern Sierra to
>> just south of Minden, NV. � That may have been the largest NPA in
>> the country at the time.
>
> Doesn't 907 have every one beat?
Oh, that country. ;-)
808 is quite big, too.
Date: Sat, 06 Feb 2010 06:23:55 -0800
From: Sam Spade <sam@coldmail.com>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: Status of 737 area code
Message-ID: <0Yebn.79184$CM7.34729@newsfe04.iad>
John Mayson wrote:
> Once upon a time 737 was slated to be overlaid on 512 in the Austin
> area. This never happened. If memory serves me correctly it was
> combination of the dot-com bust, less demand for numbers, and
> changes to how groups of numbers were parceled out that prevented
> this from happening.
>
> I sometimes read a humor site detailing funny, albeit rather
> juvenile, text messages that are identified only by area code. I've
> seen a couple referencing 737 and one of them mentioned "Texas". We
> do not have 10-digital dialing here, I checked. And as far as I can
> tell no 737 numbers have been issued. I understand this site is
> hardly an authoritative source, but has 737 become active? I even
> did a Google News search, but only got a bunch of irrelevant
> articles plus a ton about airliners.
According to the authoritative Local Calling Guide:
http://www.localcallingguide.com/
737 is assigned to Texas but is not in service.
Date: 6 Feb 2010 05:14:00 -0000
From: John Levine <johnl@iecc.com>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: Status of 737 area code
Message-ID: <20100206051400.88522.qmail@simone.iecc.com>
>I sometimes read a humor site detailing funny, albeit rather juvenile,
>text messages that are identified only by area code. I've seen a
>couple referencing 737 and one of them mentioned "Texas". We do not
>have 10-digital dialing here, I checked.
NANPA says 737 is not active. If you can make calls with 7D, that
definitively tells you that your area is not overlaid, since the FCC
will not permit overlays without mandatory 10D dialing.
R's,
John
Date: 6 Feb 2010 05:15:11 -0000
From: John Levine <johnl@iecc.com>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: Overlays and Dialing Plans (was at&t vs. Verizon TV Ads)
Message-ID: <20100206051511.88838.qmail@simone.iecc.com>
>> ... of Minden, NV. That may have been the largest NPA in the
>> country at the time.
>
>Doesn't 907 have every one beat?
819, which covers most of Quebec and all of Nunavut.
FYI, Nunavut is bigger than Quebec, and Quebec is bigger than Alaska
R's,
John
Date: 6 Feb 2010 05:18:04 -0000
From: John Levine <johnl@iecc.com>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: Overlays and Dialing Plans
Message-ID: <20100206051804.89551.qmail@simone.iecc.com>
> Well, speaking of "wacky dialing plans", I thought that some of the
> communities in southern NJ which were within various local (EAS)
> dialing arrangements that ultimately cross what is now (since 1999)
> the 609/856 NPA split line were very vocal to the NJ-BPU (Board of
> Public Utilities), and as such the NJ-BPU ordered that this was to
> be protected 7-digit local (EAS) dialing across that split-line.
I grew up in Princeton NJ and my father still lives there. When I was
a kid we had protected dialing to nearby towns in what was then 201,
but that went away a long time ago. There's no more protected dialing
in NJ.
R's,
John
Date: Fri, 05 Feb 2010 23:05:34 -0700
From: "Anthony Bellanga" <anthonybellanga@gonetoearth.com>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: NJ 609/856 (was: Overlays and Dialing Plans)
Message-ID: <WorldClient-F201002052305.AA05340264@gonetoearth.com>
On Friday 05-February-2010, John Levine wrote:
> anthonybellanga wrote:
>> Well, speaking of "wacky dialing plans", I thought that some of the
>> communities in southern NJ which were within various local (EAS)
>> dialing arrangements that ultimately cross what is now (since 1999)
>> the 609/856 NPA split line were very vocal to the NJ-BPU (Board of
>> Public Utilities), and as such the NJ-BPU ordered that this was to
>> be protected 7-digit local (EAS) dialing across that
>> split-line. Maybe this was something proposed but never came about
>> though, but I do remember something about the "vocal locals" in
>> this part of NJ when Bell Atlantic and NANPA were preparing for the
>> 609/856 NPA split back then.
> I grew up in Princeton NJ and my father still lives there. When I
> was a kid we had protected dialing to nearby towns in what was then
> 201, but that went away a long time ago. There's no more protected
> dialing in NJ.
I was NOT referring to any (former) protected 7D local dialing between
North and South Jersey across the "old" 201/609 split line.
I am specifically referring to possible remaining protected 7D local
dialing in east/west directions across the 1999-implemented 609/856
split line. I do remember there being talk about this back in 1998 and
1999, and that the BPU was probably going to require such protected
c.o.codes for rertaining some 7D dialing across the new 609/856 split
line.
Take a look at (Lockheed-Martin back then) NANPA Planning Letter #173,
dated 05-May-1999, which can be downloaded from NeuStar-NANPA's
website, at: http://www.nanpa.com/pdf/pl-nanp-173.pdf
On page two of that NANPA PL #173 is the following:
"The New Jersey Board of Public Utilities has ordered that there be
protected codes in specified municipalities and concurrent rate areas,
and, where the protected codes exist, providers should continue to
transmit 7-digits."
On page six (the final page) of this NANPA PL #173 is a list of
"protected" rate centers and their 609-NXX or 856-NXX c.o.codes.
BERLIN
609-210,322,719,753,767,768,809
BURLINGTON
609-239,326,386,387,526,643,699,747,835,871,877,880
GLASSBORO
856-244,307,595,863,881
HAMMONTON
609-561,567,704
MARLTON
856-355,446,574,596,762,797,810,983,985,988
MEDFORD
609-257,444,654,714,953
MILLVILLE
856-293,327,565,765,776,825
MILMAY
609-476
PORT NORRIS
856-785
RIVERSIDE
856-255,461,544,657,764,824
VINELAND
856-205,507,563,690,691,692,696,697,794,899,974
VINCENTOWN
609-268,388,801,859
WILLIAMSTN
856-237,262,629,728,740,875,885
NOW... I realize that this was over ten years ago now, and it could be
that things have changed since then. So, I went over to NANPA's
website, for the (US) "Central Office Codes Report" section,
http://www.nanpa.com/reports/reports_cocodes.html
and clicked on "Central Office Code Utilized Report",
http://www.nanpa.com/nas/public/assigned_code_query_step1.do?method=resetCodeQueryModel
Then I selected New Jersey and 609 from the "drop down menus", and
also did some searches by selecting NJ and 856 from the same "drop
downs".
I did NOT do an "exhaustive" search of everything in the chart from
the ten+ year old 1999 Planning Letter, but I did check a few 609-NXX
codes and 856-NXX codes shown for those rate centers on the final page
of that 1999 Planning Letter.
Of those that I did check, the particular NXXs in 609 ARE_ALSO shown
in the NPA 856 listing, "flagged" as 'UA' meaning "un-assignable", not
to be assigned in that 856 NPA to 856 rate centers (the N11 codes,
555, 950, etc. are also flagged as such), but it did show a rate
center associated as well, the_SAME_RATE_CENTER_FROM_ITS_609_APPEARANCE_!
AND VICE-VERSA -- checking some of those (actual) 856-NXX codes to see
if they are similarly "protected" in NPA 609, and of those I checked,
YES, they are similarly indicated!
THUS... it DOES APPEAR, that even in 2010, there are STILL SOME
609-NXX codes and 856-NXX codes that are mutually "protected" in the
opposite area code, associated with rate centers along the
1999-implemented 609/856 NPA split line, thus apparently 7D local
dialing can still be done for such local calls across that 609/856 NPA
split line from 1999.
I am NOT making this up. Check it out for yourself... the URLs from
the NANPA site are all indicated above!
A/B
Date: Fri, 05 Feb 2010 23:30:18 -0700
From: "Anthony Bellanga" <anthonybellanga@gonetoearth.com>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: Status of the 737 Area Code
Message-ID: <WorldClient-F201002052330.AA30180267@gonetoearth.com>
On Friday 05-February-2010, John Mayson wrote:
> Once upon a time 737 was slated to be overlaid on 512 in the Austin
> area. This never happened. If memory serves me correctly it was
> combination of the dot-com bust, less demand for numbers, and changes
> to how groups of numbers were parceled out that prevented this from
> happening.
[ ... ]
> We do not have 10-digital dialing here, I checked. And as far as I can
> tell no 737 numbers have been issued. I understand this site is hardly
> an authoritative source, but has 737 become active?
The TX-PUC approved a "partial" overlay of 512 back in 2001. NANPA and
the PUC announced the new "partial" overlay area code as 737, but the
implementation dates were "TBD". This is how 512/737 remained ever
since.
737 was to overlay only certain exchange areas within 512, mostly the
main corridor between Austin and San Marcos, but the other fringes of
512 would retain seven-digit local dialing and not have any 737
numbers at the outset, but the overlay would have most likely expanded
at a later date. However, NO dates were ever determined, neither for
the initial partial overlay, nor for any later expansion to overlay
the rest of 512.
But ironically you should inquire about this now, because recently,
NeuStar-NANPA and the telephone industry drafted a petition which has
already been presented to the TX-PUC (last week in January 2010), to
re-open the 512/737 overlay, but this time, the telephone industry
wants the TX-PUC to approve a full overlay of all of 512 with 737,
along with the obvious mandatory ten-digit local dialing. This is
still pending before the TX-PUC, so there arent even any "potential"
impelementation dates at this time. The TX-PUC still has to approve
this petition by the telephone industry "thru" NANPA.
ALSO, Remember that NANPA does NOT make the choice of split
vs. overlay. NANPA presents several relief options to the telephone
industry when NANPA feels that relief is needed for an area code. It
is then a consensus process by the telephone industry who attend the
in-person meetings or participate on conference calls as to the
particular choice of relief method(s) to be presented to the state
regulatory agency by NANPA. Canada has a similar process, where the
Canadian telcos meet in-person and/or by teleconference, have their
consensue process as to which relief method is destired, which is then
presented to the CRTC (regulatory) by the CNA (Canadian Numbering
Administrator). NANPA and the CNA do NOT "vote" in the consensus
process. Both are "neutral" parties which present various relief
method options for an area code. The telcos involved can even present
additional relief method options for discussion if they so choose. And
then after a vote by the telcos themselves (but NOT including any
"vote" from NANPA or the CNA), then NANPA presents the industry's
decisions as a petition before the state commission, and the CNA
presents the Canadian telcos' decisions as a petition before the CRTC.
So, in closing, 737 is a PENDING overlay (partial or complete) overlay
to 512 in the Austin/San Marcos/vicinity area in Texas, but no dates
were ever determined. And most recently, the telco industry has
requested NANPA to re-open the procedings before the TX-PUC, and this
time are requesting a review by the PUC for a "complete" or "full"
overlay of 512 with 737.
A/B
Date: Sat, 6 Feb 2010 10:01:02 EST
From: Wesrock@aol.com
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: Status of 737 area code
Message-ID: <225a2.6a03c60f.389ede2e@aol.com>
In a message dated 2/5/2010 9:45:52 PM Central Standard Time,
john@mayson.us writes:
> Once upon a time 737 was slated to be overlaid on 512 in the Austin
> area. This never happened. If memory serves me correctly it was
> combination of the dot-com bust, less demand for numbers, and
> changes to how groups of numbers were parceled out that prevented
> this from happening.
Even earlier the 512 area code included San Antonio and into the Lower
Reio Grand Valley. It was split (not overlaid) and San Antonio et al
got 210. I don't have any evidence for this, but I figured the telco
thought there might have been resistance by state officials to chaning
the area code for the state capital and all the state agencies.
Wes Leatherock
wesrock@aol.com
wleathus@yahoo.com
Date: Sat, 06 Feb 2010 10:16:38 -0800
From: Sam Spade <sam@coldmail.com>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: Overlays and Dialing Plans (was at&t vs. Verizon TV Ads)
Message-ID: <bmibn.22136$aU4.10025@newsfe13.iad>
Julian Thomas wrote:
> On 5 Feb 2010 23:43:31 -0000 John Levine wrote:
>
>
>>I would be astonished if it were not 1+10D, the NANPA dialing guide
>>says it is, and we don't have protected dialing anywhere else in NJ.
>
>
> Years back there used to be protected dialling in the Washington DC
> metro area covering neighboring MD and Va. Is this still the case, or
> is it all 10 digit by now?
That is long gone. So is the Kansas City metro area.
Date: Sat, 06 Feb 2010 12:31:14 -0700
From: "Anthony Bellanga" <anthonybellanga@gonetoearth.com>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Nunavut Territory in Canada
Message-ID: <WorldClient-F201002061231.AA31140279@gonetoearth.com>
John Levine wrote in "re: Overlays and Dialing Plans":
> John Mayson wrote:
[regarding the size of California's old 714, now 760/442]
>> Doesn't 907 [Alaska] have every one beat?
> 819, which covers most of Quebec and all of Nunavut.
> FYI, Nunavut is bigger than Quebec, and Quebec is bigger than Alaska.
Well, 819 has been STRICTLY Quebec since 1998.
In Fall 1997:
the eastern and northern Arctic parts of Canada's Northwest Territories
which had shared from Quebec's 819 ...
and Canada's Yukon Territory and the southern/western parts of Canada's
Northwest Territories which had been shared from Alberta's 403, all
changed, splitting from 403 and 819, into a new 867 area code.
There was only ONE NNX code which existed in both 403 and in 819 and also
in the northern territories under both NPAs but in different locations:
403-979 (at the time) Inuvik NT
819-979 (at the time) Iqaluit NT (once known as Frobisher Bay NT)
At the time permissive dialing began for the split (21-October-1997), and
continuing into and following mandatory dialing with NPA 867 (26-Apr-1998)
and afterwards), Iqaluit NT simply changed to 867-979. But Inuvik NT
changed from 403-979 to 867-777. Also, Iunvik NT could NOT be temporarily
dialed as 403-777, since that c.o.code was/is assigned in Calgary AB.
So, during the permissive dialing period, Inuvik NT could still continue
be dialed (until mandatory dialing) as 403-979-xxxx (locally as 979-xxxx)
as well as 867-777-xxxx (locally as 777-xxxx), the latter becoming the
only method when mandatory dialing of 867 kicked in.
On 01-April-1999, Nunavut Territory was officially created, carved out of
the Northwest Territories. The territorial capital is Iqaluit (once known
as Frobisher Bay), which was one of the two northern territory locations
which had a 979 c.o.code. Iqaluit retained 979 as mentioned above, under
NPA 867 since it was known that it would be the territorial capital of
Nunavut Territory.
The OLD 819 parts of the NWT are not "identical" with Nunavut, nor are
the OLD 403 parts of the NWT "identical" with the post-Nunavut NWT.
But there is a "rough similarity" of coverage of Nunavut w-r-t the old
819 in the eastern and Arctic NWT, and the coverage of post-Nunavut NWT
w-r-t the old 403 in the western and southern (pre-Nunavut) NWT.
The reason for having both 403 and 819 to serve parts of the NWT has to
do with the history of the telcos involved in first providing service to
Arctic Canada.
CNCP (the railway/telegraph entity of Canadian National and Canadian
Pacific) worked closely with AGT (Alberta Government Telephones, now
Telus) to extend telephone service to Yukon and that part of the NWT that
was to the south-and-west. This dates back to the 1950s and 60s era.
Later, during the 1960s and 70s, Bell Canada began to build out its
Quebec (and Ottawa ON toll operator services) into the eastern and Arctic
parts of the NWT. Thus, an Alberta NPA (403) for Yukon and that part of
the NWT which was built-out from Alberta, and a Quebec NPA (819) for that
part of the NWT (now mostly Nunavut) which was built-out from Quebec.
In the late 1980s, CNCP wanted to also become a competitive long-distance
provider, competiting against the TCTS/Telecom Canada consortium of
dominant provincial telcos' nationwide telephone network. Afterall, CNCP
was the major railway consortium and the telegraph provider for just about
all of Canada.
But the CRTC (Federal regulatory) told CNCP that they had to divest
themselves of their local (ILEC) telephone operations -- NorthwesTel in
Yukon and western/southtern NWT (and also the northern edge of BC), and
also Terra Nova Telephone which operated in parts of Newfoundland/
Labrador (but did NOT compete with partially Bell-held Newfoundland Tel.
Note that CNCP-held Terra Nova Tel and partially Bell-held Newfoundland
Telephone really share the same _NAME_! :) One is in Latin, the other in
English! :-)
So, Bell Canada Enterprises (BCE), the corporate entity which owned Bell
Canada (most of ON, most of PQ, and the 819 parts of eastern NWT),
Telebec (parts of Quebec), Northern Tel (parts of Ontario), and partially
held the four Maritime/Atlantic province telcos (NB Tel, Nova Scotia's
Maritime Tel and Tel, MT&T-dominated (Prince Edward) Island Tel, and
Newfoundland Tel), bought out the two CNCP local telephone operations,
NorthwesTel in the Yukon and the 403 (western) parts of the NWT as well
as the northern edge of British Columia, and Terra Nova Tel in parts of
Newfoundland/Labrador. This took effect in 1988.
Then BCE migrated the 819 eastern/Arctic parts of the NWT from direct
(Quebec) Bell Canada operation into the newly BCE-acquired (from CNCP)
NorthwesTel. BCE also merged their newly acquired (from CNCP) Terra Nova
Tel into partially Bell-held Newfoundland Tel.
And then almost ten years later, it was decided that shared use of 403 and
819 for different parts of the NWT (especially with Nunavut about to
become its own political jurisdiction), as well as shared use of 403 from
Telus/AGT Alberta by Yukon, was too cumbersome, so the combined 867 NPA
was created for all of northern Territorial Canada. Note that the northern
edge of British Columbia is still served by BCE-held NorthwesTel, and was
part of the old 604 NPA for (at the time) all of British Columbia. In 1996
604 for BC shrunk down to just the southwest corner of mainland BC (which
includes the largest CITY of Vancouver), while the new 250 NPA split off
for everything else, including Vancouver ISLAND where the capital of the
province, Victoria BC is located, as well as the northern edge of BC
served by (by then BCE-held) NorthwesTel. 778 overlaid 604 in November
2001, and in 2007/08, 778 expanded to overlay 250, the remainder of the
province, so the northern edge of BC is now 250-potentially-overlaid-with-
778.
Anyhow, the 867 NPA which is shared by all three Canadian northern
territories, is said to be the largest geographically in the entire NANP,
but is one of the smallest in population.
A/B
Date: Sat, 06 Feb 2010 15:02:05 -0500
From: ed <bernies@netaxs.com>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: New NYC area code: (929)
Message-ID: <20100206150205.13723vr0ayqp75yc@webmail.uslec.net>
http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/additional-area-code-planned-for-new-york-city-82416587.html
Additional Area Code Planned for New York City
'929' Overlay Code Assigned to Outer Boroughs
STERLING, Va., Jan. 22 /PRNewswire-FirstCall/ -- Neustar, Inc. (NYSE:
NSR), serving in its capacity as the North American Numbering Plan
Administrator (NANPA), announced today that an additional area code
(929) has been assigned to the existing 718 and 347 area codes that
serve the outer boroughs of New York City -- namely the Bronx, Brooklyn,
Queens and Staten Island. The dialing pattern, which is already in
effect in the New York City area, requires all local calls within and
between the 718 and 347 area codes and the new 929 area code to be
dialed by using 1+10 digit dialing. Existing 718 and 347 telephone
numbers will not change.
Neustar has forecasted that numbering resources in the 718 and 347 area
codes will exhaust by 2012. The New York Public Service Commission has
directed all local exchange service providers to activate the new 929
area code to ensure the availability of numbering resources in a manner
that is most efficient and least confusing for consumers, while
minimizing possible disruption to consumers and businesses. Telephone
service providers will begin customer education in mid-year in
preparation for the introduction of the new 929 area code.
A telecommunications industry group comprised of service providers from
various industry segments collectively develops area code relief plans
for New York. Relief activities for area codes in New York are overseen
by Neustar.
Neustar was selected by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to
serve as the NANPA, the neutral third-party administrator that works
with the telecommunications industry in developing area code relief
plans. NANPA also oversees the assignment of area codes, central office
codes, carrier identification codes, and other numbering resources
throughout the United States, Canada, Bermuda and 16 Caribbean countries.
TELECOM Digest is an electronic journal devoted mostly to telecom-
munications topics. It is circulated anywhere there is email, in
addition to Usenet, where it appears as the moderated newsgroup
'comp.dcom.telecom'.
TELECOM Digest is a not-for-profit, mostly non-commercial educational
service offered to the Internet by Bill Horne. All the contents
of the Digest are compilation-copyrighted. You may reprint articles in
some other media on an occasional basis, but please attribute my work
and that of the original author.
The Telecom Digest is moderated by Bill Horne.
Contact information: Bill Horne
Telecom Digest
43 Deerfield Road
Sharon MA 02067-2301
781-784-7287
bill at horne dot net
Subscribe: telecom-request@telecom-digest.org?body=subscribe telecom
Unsubscribe: telecom-request@telecom-digest.org?body=unsubscribe telecom
This Digest is the oldest continuing e-journal about telecomm-
unications on the Internet, having been founded in August, 1981 and
published continuously since then. Our archives are available for
your review/research. We believe we are the oldest e-zine/mailing list
on the internet in any category!
URL information: http://telecom-digest.org
Copyright (C) 2009 TELECOM Digest. All rights reserved.
Our attorney is Bill Levant, of Blue Bell, PA.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Finally, the Digest is funded by gifts from generous readers such as
yourself who provide funding in amounts deemed appropriate. Your help
is important and appreciated. A suggested donation of fifty dollars
per year per reader is considered appropriate. See our address above.
Please make at least a single donation to cover the cost of processing
your name to the mailing list.
All opinions expressed herein are deemed to be those of the
author. Any organizations listed are for identification purposes only
and messages should not be considered any official expression by the
organization.
End of The Telecom digest (13 messages)
|
or 