28 Years of the Digest ... founded August 21, 1981

Classified Ads
TD Extra News

Add this Digest to your personal   or  

 
 

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)

Return to Archives ** Older Issues