linn@CCY.BBN.COM.UUCP (06/27/86)
With regard to the area code occupancy list in TELECOM Digest V5 #123 -- I've also wondered about why Massachusetts was split between 617 and 413 in such an unbalanced fashion, and why the shorter-to-dial code was given to the smaller and less populous portion. I have a vague recollection from some historical literature that Springfield, MA (in 413) was involved in some of the earliest DDD service tests in the 50's, and this might account for assignment of a low-numbered code (Does anyone have any specifics on this? I don't have any references available.). Alternately, it might result from the heuristic "thou shalt try not to put an NPA boundary through a heavily populated region". Whatever the reason, the result is surely anomalous! --jl