davidb@pacer.uucp (David Barts) (02/20/91)
Several months ago (or was it that long) there was a discussion in this Digest about NPA 206 (western Washington state) running out of NXX exchange codes, and the fact that we will soon be seeing N0X/N1X exchange codes. Well, on the news this morning it was reported that beginning this November, a permissive period will begin when intra-NPA LD calls can be dialed as 1+206+7D or the existing 1+7D. Sometime later, 1+206+7D dialling will become mandatory (they didn't say when). So common sense has prevailed (this time), and there is no longer any need for us in NPA 206 to have to worry about accidentally dialling a seven-digit long distance call. Our Usenet feed has been very unreliable recently, and I have missed the past few days' worth of comp.dcom.telecom. My apologies if this item has been posted already. Also, there has been a flurry of recent activity in the Washington Utilities and Transportation Commission and the State Legislature about US West's Caller*ID proposals for our state. If nobody else has posted anything, I'll post a short summary of the situatiuon so far. David Barts Pacer Corporation, Bothell, WA davidb@pacer.uucp ...!uunet!pilchuck!pacer!davidb
Tad.Cook@cs.washington.edu (02/27/91)
In article <telecom11.132.4@eecs.nwu.edu>, davidb@pacer.uucp (David Barts) writes: > Several months ago (or was it that long) there was a discussion in > this Digest about NPA 206 (western Washington state) running out of > NXX exchange codes, and the fact that we will soon be seeing N0X/N1X > exchange codes. I got the notice from Bellcore a couple of weeks ago. I called the contact at US West listed on the notice, and tried to get him to speculate when 206 (Western Washington) will be divided into two NPAs. He thinks that it will be a done deal by mid-1995. My personal guess is that they will make King and Snohomish counties 206, and the rest of Western Washington something else, or they will draw an east-west line somewhere between Seattle and Tacoma, and divide it there. Tad Cook Seattle, WA Packet: KT7H @ N7ENT.#WWA.WA.USA.NA Phone: 206/527-4089 MCI Mail: 3288544 Telex: 6503288544 MCI UW USENET:...uw-beaver!sumax!amc-gw!ssc!tad or, tad@ssc.UUCP
carroll@ssc-vax.uucp (Jeff Carroll) (03/03/91)
In article <telecom11.162.1@eecs.nwu.edu> hpubvwa!ssc!Tad.Cook writes: > My personal guess is that they will make King and Snohomish counties > 206, and the rest of Western Washington something else, or they will > draw an east-west line somewhere between Seattle and Tacoma, and > divide it there. If they make King and Snohomish 206 and the rest something else, an interesting situation would ensue - namely, there would be two geographical pieces of something-else, and in order to get from one to the other, you would have to drive thru 206 (or take a ferry across the Sound). Remember, King and Snohomish both run east to the current 206/509 boundary (does anyone know for sure whether the two coincide - for example, aren't all the ski resorts at Snoqualmie summit - including the ones in King County - in 509?). The east-west line would IMHO not be the best choice. No matter where you draw the line between Seattle and Tacoma, most future growth would be taking place north of the line. I can think of two other possibilities - one would be to draw a line around Seattle, Tacoma, and possibly Olympia (with the line running down the middle of Lake Washington - leave Mercer Island in with Seattle). This would isolate the bulk of the existing subscriber base from the suburbs, which is where most future growth will occur (like it or not). The other would be to enlarge 509 (how much of its capacity is being used?) Jeff Carroll carroll@ssc-vax.boeing.com