See the bottom of this issue for subscription and archive details.
| Date: Fri, 10 Jul 2015 21:40:51 -0500
From: gordonb.fo5xx@burditt.org (Gordon Burditt)
To: telecomdigestsubmissions.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: 1xx exchange in area code 212?
Message-ID: <f--dnX9KH4yuHz3InZ2dnUU7-V2dnZ2d@posted.internetamerica>
> It had the telephone number 212-165-8220.
....
> Exchange 165?
Until you get rid of all 7-digit and 1+7-digit dialing in area code
212, you can't have an exchange that begins with a 0 or 1. This
happened Feb. 1, 2003 (for area code 212 and other area codes serving
New York City). For other areas, the date may be different, and
areas with no area code split yet may still allow 7-digit dialing.
165-1234 could be confused with incomplete dialing of 1-651-234-????
if 7-digit dialing is allowed. (Area code 651 is in Saint Paul,
MN.) With the exception of "0" (for Operator), the (North American)
phone system doesn't like a valid phone number to be a prefix of
another valid phone number.
They COULD create a 165 exchange now, but planning seems to be
going in another direction. It is expected that unassigned area
codes will run out around 2044, based on a 2014 projection.
The plan at that point involves changing all existing phone numbers
to insert 00 or 11 between the area code and the exchange (based
on country. USA gets 00 and Canada gets 11, or vice versa.). This
allows a grace period of using both 10-digit and 12-digit numbers,
distinguishing between 10-digit numbers (where the first digit of
the exchange is not allowed to be 0 or 1) and 12-digit numbers
(where the first digit after the area code is 0 or 1) without any
timeouts IF the rule against exchanges beginning with 0 or 1 is
kept. Therefore, I think the rule will be kept. A flash cutover
where all phone numbers change in length overnight is not workable.
So, I expect that using 165 as an exchange will be good as a phony
phone number for about 3 decades, and after that, it's a 10-digit
phone number and obviously phony and obsolete in a North America
filled with 12-digit phone numbers.
|
| Date: Sat, 11 Jul 2015 12:25:04 -0400
From: Barry Margolin <barmar@alum.mit.edu>
To: telecomdigestsubmissions.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: 1xx exchange in area code 212?
Message-ID: <barmar-974CE5.12250411072015@88-209-239-213.giganet.hu>
In article <mnolrf$odc$1@pcls7.std.com>,
moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) wrote:
> A local (Boston) TV station had a news story on the transformation of a
> part of Boston's Chinatown to look like New York City's Chinatown for the
> filming of the new Ghostbusters movie which is being filmed there. They
> mentioned such things as changing street signs, adding such things as NY
> Lottery stickers in doors and NYC health board signs in the windows of
> restaurants, and signs on buildings with Area Code 212 telephone numbers.
> While the reporter was discussing how they were trying to make things as
> realistic as possible, I was sitting there thinking how wrong the sign
> behind him looked. Why? It had the telephone number 212-165-8220.
> Exchange 165? I have never seen a 7 digit telephone number begin with a
> 1 (or 0). Is this a glaring mistake or are they assigning exchanges
> beginning with 1 (and 0?) in area code 212 now? The place across the
> street also had a sign with a 212-165-xxxx telephone number as well.
>
> The days of using exchange 555 for phony telephone numbers are long gone,
> but 165?
Maybe they did it precisely because there's no such exchange, so the
actual owner of the phone number wouldn't receive calls as a result.
--
Barry Margolin, barmar@alum.mit.edu
Arlington, MA
*** PLEASE post questions in newsgroups, not directly to me ***
|
| Date: Sat, 11 Jul 2015 17:21:45 -0400
From: Fred Goldstein <invalid@see.sig.telecom-digest.org>
To: telecomdigestsubmissions.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: 1xx exchange in area code 212?
Message-ID: <55A188E9.9020202@ionary.com>
On 7/10/2015 10:46 AM, Michael Moroney wrote:
> A local (Boston) TV station had a news story on the transformation of a
> part of Boston's Chinatown to look like New York City's Chinatown for the
> filming of the new Ghostbusters movie which is being filmed there. They
> mentioned such things as changing street signs, adding such things as NY
> Lottery stickers in doors and NYC health board signs in the windows of
> restaurants, and signs on buildings with Area Code 212 telephone numbers.
> While the reporter was discussing how they were trying to make things as
> realistic as possible, I was sitting there thinking how wrong the sign
> behind him looked. Why? It had the telephone number 212-165-8220.
> Exchange 165? I have never seen a 7 digit telephone number begin with a
> 1 (or 0). Is this a glaring mistake or are they assigning exchanges
> beginning with 1 (and 0?) in area code 212 now? The place across the
> street also had a sign with a 212-165-xxxx telephone number as well.
>
> The days of using exchange 555 for phony telephone numbers are long gone,
> but 165?
>
Not very convincing, IMHO. They don't start 7-digit numbers with 1 or
0. There was talk about 15 years ago about a plan to expand the NANP by
using new numbers that did, so that 12-digit new numbers could be
distinguished from 10-digit old numbers. But the rate of new area code
creation slowed down so there was no need for it, and it was a dumb idea
anyway. (I did come up with a better IMHO plan that evolved gracefully
to 8 digit in-NPA numbers, with new grouped NPA/SACs only dialed when
needed. It would require interim dialing of longer numbers, though.)
|
| Date: Fri, 10 Jul 2015 17:45:41 -0700 (PDT)
From: Tom Horne <hornetd@remove-this.gmail.com>
To: telecomdigestsubmissions.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: 1xx exchange in area code 212?
Message-ID: <d27e4c0c-fed6-497b-9564-e5b35b6856f9@googlegroups.com>
On Friday, July 10, 2015 at 6:28:41 PM UTC-4, Michael Moroney wrote:
> A local (Boston) TV station had a news story on the transformation of a
> part of Boston's Chinatown to look like New York City's Chinatown for the
> filming of the new Ghostbusters movie which is being filmed there. They
> mentioned such things as changing street signs, adding such things as NY
> Lottery stickers in doors and NYC health board signs in the windows of
> restaurants, and signs on buildings with Area Code 212 telephone numbers.
> While the reporter was discussing how they were trying to make things as
> realistic as possible, I was sitting there thinking how wrong the sign
> behind him looked. Why? It had the telephone number 212-165-8220.
> Exchange 165? I have never seen a 7 digit telephone number begin with a
> 1 (or 0). Is this a glaring mistake or are they assigning exchanges
> beginning with 1 (and 0?) in area code 212 now? The place across the
> street also had a sign with a 212-165-xxxx telephone number as well.
>
> The days of using exchange 555 for phony telephone numbers are long gone,
> but 165?
I believe the practice has always been to use numbers that are not
ever likely to be in service. So if the numbers look wrong to you
they're probably right.
--
Tom Horne
|
| Date: Sat, 11 Jul 2015 04:27:37 -0700 (PDT)
From: Neal McLain <nmclain.remove-this@and-this-too.annsgarden.com>
To: telecomdigestsubmissions.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: 1xx exchange in area code 212?
Message-ID: <66dffb35-2027-4b54-8f87-1117de09cacd@googlegroups.com>
On Friday, July 10, 2015 at 5:28:41 PM UTC-5, Michael Moroney wrote:
> The days of using exchange 555 for phony telephone numbers are
> long gone, but 165?
We've discussed this before here on T-D. See for example:
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/comp.dcom.telecom/4ElPbyKQXa4/orVGxgHl82gJ
In which I asked:
> If/when the entire NANP goes to 10- (or 11-) digit dialing
> on all calls, we should be able to use 1 and 0 for the first
> digit of the NXX code -- turning it into an XXX code. Thus,
> combinations such as 415-120-9905 and 415-020-9905 would be
> valid. This would result in a 25% increase in the size of
> the number pool.
>
> Is this likely to happen?
And Pat Townson responded with a lengthy explanation concluding with:
> Besides, there are other ways to expand the supply of
> numbers, and telco would rather inconvenience the public
> with area code overlays and eleven digit dialing anytime
> in preference to having to be inconvenienced itself in
> its own internal functions.
I miss Pat.
Neal McLain
|
| Date: Fri, 10 Jul 2015 21:34:22 -0400
From: Monty Solomon <monty@roscom.com>
To: telecomdigestsubmissions.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Hacking of Government Computers Exposed 21.5 Million People
Message-ID: <8BF8E705-AAE4-4B95-82B6-2BA3150105EA@roscom.com>
Hacking of Government Computers Exposed 21.5 Million People
Every person given a government background check for the last 15 years
was probably affected, the Office of Personnel Management said.
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/07/10/us/office-of-personnel-management-hackers-got-data-of-millions.html
|
| Date: Fri, 10 Jul 2015 21:32:03 -0400
From: Monty Solomon <monty@roscom.com>
To: telecomdigestsubmissions.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Hold the Phone, It's Patti LuPone
Message-ID: <67D542EA-64E5-471D-A429-8E092E53C5FF@roscom.com>
Hold the Phone, It's Patti LuPone
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/07/10/theater/hold-the-phone-its-patti-lupone.html
Ms. LuPone talks about taking away the cellphone of a texting audience
member during a performance of "Shows for Days".
|
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 educational service offered to
the Internet 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 © 2015 E. William Horne. All rights reserved.
Finally, the Digest is funded by gifts from generous readers such as
yourself. Thank you!
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.
