30 Years of the Digest ... founded August 21, 1981
Add this Digest to your personal
or 
The Telecom Digest for September 20, 2011
Volume 30 : Issue 236 : "text" Format
====== 30 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 Bill Horne 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 that person, or email address
owner.
Addresses herein are not to be added to any mailing list, nor to be
sold or given away without the explicit written consent of the owner of
that address. 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: Sun, 18 Sep 2011 21:58:23 -0500
From: Neal McLain <nmclain@annsgarden.com>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: EXchanges (was: area code named beer)
Message-ID: <4E76AFCF.2010904@annsgarden.com>
HAncock4 <withh...@invalid.telecom-digest.org> wrote:
> On Sep 16, 7:15 pm, t...@panix.com (Thor Lancelot Simon)
> wrote:
>> Not such a major undertaking. In roughly 1980 I lived in a
>> rural area of New York State that still had 4 digit dialing.
>> Extension to a longer number can be done automatically --
>> it is fully deterministic, you are just adding predetermined
>> digits.
>> My number was 687-XXXX for external purposes, but for in-town
>> callers, simply XXXX would do. The "687", obviously, was
>> just added onto the front when numbers went to 7 digits --
>> and there were towns near us with switches still configured
>> to allow 3-digit dialing, which had had four digits prefixed
>> to the front, too.
> If someone's phone number was say 6235, how would the switch
> know if someone was dialing 687-6235 or just 6235?
Most probable answer: there were no numbers in the form 6XXX, 7XXX, or
8XXX. As I explained in my post of Sep 17, 10:14, the dialing plan
segregated local 4-digit numbers from the absorbed digits 6, 7, and 8.
Thus:
1 = access for non-local numbers + vertical service codes
2XXX = local number, blank level, or nearby community
3XXX = local number, blank level, or nearby community
4XXX = local number, blank level, or nearby community
5XXX = local number, blank level, or nearby community
6 = absorbed at the first selector by "AR" digit absorber
7 = absorbed at the first selector by "AR" digit absorber
8 = absorbed at the first selector by "AR" digit absorber
9XXX = local number, blank level, or nearby community
0 = operator (or access code)
But, as I noted previously, the above dialing plan is just a best-guess
on my part. I assume Thor will let us know which levels actually were
used for local numbers.
As for Thor's original statement, "Not such a major undertaking," it
would been a fairly straightforward undertaking at the local exchange
level. Each first selector would have to have been equipped for
digit-absorbing circuitry, and strapped to absorb the specific digits
relevant to the exchange (6, 7, and 8 in this case).
The really major undertaking would have been at the area-code level,
where the job was to assign each community within the area code one or
more NNX exchange codes which:
- Wouldn't conflict with the local dialing plan.
- Wouldn't conflict with the local dialing plan of any neighboring
community reached by seven-digit dialing.
- Wouldn't conflict with any existing NNX codes within the area code.
- Were true NNX codes (which excludes N0X and N1X codes, which didn't
exist until the '70s, and even then were restricted to larger cities
already using seven-digit dialing plans).
In a later message in this tread, tlvp <mPiOsUcB.EtLlL...@att.net> wrote:
> On Sat, 17 Sep 2011 10:14:40 -0500, Neal McLain wrote:
> ... [big snip] ...
>> John figured out that if he asked the operator for 8-2440,
>> the operator would dial it like any other 8-XXXX number.
>> He'd then flash of the switchhook on his room phone,
>> effectively dialing 1. Thus, the central office saw 82-4401,
>> ignored the "A"-digit 8, and sent the call right back to the
>> West Quad PBX. John could make an inside call.
> Hook-flash dialing was quite a trick to master, if you hadn't
> quite ever needed to before.
Well, yeah, but if you're only dialing a 1, it's pretty easy! The trick
is to do it fast enough that the CO won't hang up, and that it won't
attract the attention of the PBX operator.
Neal McLain
Date: Mon, 19 Sep 2011 16:46:05 -0700 (PDT)
From: Wes Leatherock <wleathus@yahoo.com>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: EXchanges (was: area code named beer)
Message-ID: <1316475965.50015.YahooMailClassic@web111716.mail.gq1.yahoo.com>
--- On Sun, 9/18/11, Neal McLain <nmclain@annsgarden.com> wrote:
>
> The really major undertaking would have been at the
> area-code level, where the job was to assign each community
> within the area code one or more NNX exchange codes which:
>
> - Wouldn't conflict with the local dialing plan.
>
> - Wouldn't conflict with the local dialing plan of any
> neighboring community reached by seven-digit dialing.
>
> - Wouldn't conflict with any existing NNX codes within the
> area code.
>
> - Were true NNX codes (which excludes N0X and N1X codes,
> which didn't exist until the '70s, and even then were
> restricted to larger cities already using seven-digit
> dialing plans).
A list of prefixes was assigned for each area code, and all of
those considerations were taken into account when the list was first
set up. Prefixes were not just assigned randomly. In locations which
already had multiple prefixes, those were incorporated into the first
area code-wide assignment.
There were also some locations where a community of interest
existed between offices in different area codes, where the prefix had
to be "protected" in both area codes.
A prime example was the greater Kansas City Metropolitan exchange,
since the metro area extended across two states with seven-digit
dialing. The Missouri side had area code 816, the Kansas side 918.
Of course, this consideration ceased to be a factor when mandatory
10-digit (or 11-digit) dialing on local calls came into existence.
Wes Leatherock
wleathus@yahoo.com
wesrock@aol.com
Date: Mon, 19 Sep 2011 16:59:14 -0400
From: tlvp <mPiOsUcB.EtLlLvEp@att.net>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Strange new at&t rumors
Message-ID: <rmssgh053tpx$.r7p5wv8q3b86.dlg@40tude.net>
In
http://www.zdnet.com/blog/btl/at-t-moves-on-to-last-ditch-efforts-to-save-t-mobile-deal/58351?tag=nl.e550
today: "AT&T is reportedly trying to sell off subscribers and spectrum
to smaller regional carriers to save its proposed bid for T-Mobile."
Editorializing, ZDnet suggests, "It looks like the idea is that AT&T wants
to appear like it has less coverage and lacks the resources to expand to
justify the need for acquiring T-Mobile and its nationwide network - the
fourth largest in the country - which is what AT&T has been arguing all
along."
I'm just left scratching my head ... and wondering what my future as
an erstwhile T-Mobile customer is going to become.
Cheers, -- tlvp
--
Avant de repondre, jeter la poubelle, SVP.
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.
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) 2011 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 (3 messages)
Return to Archives ** Older Issues