cmoore@brl.mil (VLD/VMB) (02/05/91)
With this year's 301/410 split coming in Maryland, I thought I'd review two prefixes (both at military bases) which seem to have a wide calling area. The 800-477-4704 helpline says they both stay in 301, but note the comments by me (and I don't know what the calling instructions from these prefixes are): 688 at Fort Meade -- This appears in Baltimore call guide as "Fort Meade (Waterloo)", and in Washington-area call guides as "Fort Meade (Berwyn)", apparently because it has both Baltimore and Washington metro local service. This prefix was apparently never in the 202 area (that's moot now, because all Maryland and Virginia points were removed from 202). As far as I know (not having been to Fort Meade), the other phones on that post are in the Odenton exchange, which is going into 410 (causing a problem as to how to list the area code for zip code 20755?). 878 at Fort Ritchie -- This appears in Baltimore call guide as "Fort Ritchie (Baltimore city)", and in Washington-area call guides with the Silver Spring prefixes. Also, I found out back in 1989 that the same prefix is reachable in area 717, as part of the (neighboring) Blue Ridge Summit (Pa.) exchange. Fort Ritchie proper is in a part of Maryland which is to stay in 301, but notice the reference to Baltimore city, which is going into 410. 878 as a Washington-area prefix was reachable in area code 202, but should have dropped out of that area as part of the DC area changes last fall. (By the way, a useful rule of thumb might be this: If local to Baltimore, it goes into 410; if local to DC, it stays in 301. Notice that 804 in Virginia is too far away to affect the local calling from the Va. suburbs of DC, but 410 will include some points local to the Md. suburbs of DC.)
covert@covert.enet.dec.com (John R. Covert 05-Feb-1991 1125) (02/05/91)
From: Dale Neiburg Organization: National Public Radio Subject: Re: Forts Meade and Ritchie in Maryland On 4 Feb., Carl Moore wrote: > As far as I know (not having been to Fort Meade), >the other phones on that post are in the Odenton exchange, which is >going into 410 (causing a problem as to how to list the area code for >zip code 20755?). I live about ten miles from Fort Meade, and about thirty *YARDS* from the new 301/410 dividing line. In fact, I live on the 410 side of the line, but my CO is on the 301 side, so I'm keeping the old, unimproved 301. As I understand it, my Zip Code (20723) will end up being divvied up between 301 and 410 also.
wright@ais.org (Carl Wright) (02/09/91)
In article 16712 Carl Moore is quoted as saying that his zip code will
be splitting along the with area code split.
This must be simple coincidence. The USPS doesn't care where phones
are when they define zip codes. They define the zip codes as they find
convenient.
Many a marketing organization would love for the phone number and zip
code numbers systems to be linked. Prodigy was in the market a couple
years ago trying to get a mapping between zips and npa/nxxs. We had to
tell them that what they wanted couldn't be done, at least not without
having the telco's customer file.
The teleco directory companies have started to catch on to this
interest and you will start to see your zip code appear in the phone
book. This gives them copyright on the zip combined with your phone
number and prepares a valuable file for sale to marketing
organizations.
Carl Wright | Lynn-Arthur Associates, Inc.
Internet: wright@ais.org | 2350 Green Rd., #160
Voice: 1 313 995 5590 EST | Ann Arbor, MI 48105
[Moderator's Note: You quote Carl Moore in an 'article 16712' as
saying his zip code will also change. I went back through the articles
here ('16712' means nothing on this end) and could not find any such
claim by Mr. Moore. You might want to check your source and/or
original message on this. PAT]bote@uunet.uu.net (John Boteler) (02/09/91)
From article <16673@accuvax.nwu.edu>, by cmoore@brl.mil (VLD/VMB): > With this year's 301/410 split coming in Maryland, I thought I'd > review two prefixes (both at military bases) which seem to have a wide > calling area. > 688 at Fort Meade -- This appears in Baltimore call guide as "Fort > Meade (Waterloo)", and in Washington-area call guides as "Fort Meade > (Berwyn)", The Greater Washington Area is especially interesting to phone phreaks because of the stunts C&P pulled to please Uncle Sam. The fact that Fort Meade and Fort Ritchie can be reached as local calls despite the fact that they lie a better distance away than VLD/VMB thinks they should is a simple matter of the rate mapping. There are lots of central office codes which are locally dialable around D.C., but which are FXed or remoted in from farther out COs. For instance, North Beach, which lies about 30 miles east/southeast of D.C. offers 855 as a Marlboro rate area (local to D.C.); 855 is listed as an FX to provide this local service. This will stay in 301 because of its calling area; it will not switch to 410 merely because it is served by a switch in 'Culvert' County. That would prove cumbersome and artificial for users. An interesting flip-flop on this is 831, providing Suburban Maryland service to Mount Airy, MD (an abbreviated Gaithersburg rate area). It is dialable only from Suburban Maryland west of and including Silver Spring. It basically gives Mt. Airy residents the ability to call into suburban MD when they would otherwise have a local cow pasture calling area. (Thanks to Judge Greene for this one.) Same difference with Fort Meade. I can receive calls from Fort Meade out of 677, but that exchange is a toll call for me. Meade's dilapidated office selects a tie line for either B-more or D.C. service depending on the destination of the call. 688 is FXed out of Laurel CG0 with a Berwyn rate area. It could just as easily be rated a toll-call by C&P if they wanted to; half the Greene-isms like Columbia and Mt. Airy could just as easily not be here. That's the difference between a technical consideration and a political one. Personally, I think Mr. Moore thinks too hard for his own sanity. It's much easier to try the Zen approach to telephony around D.C. ... you'll live longer! John Boteler bote@csense {uunet | ka3ovk}!media!csense!bote SkinnyDipper's Hotline: 703 241 BARE | VOICE only, Touch-Tone(TM) signalling
cmoore@brl.mil (VLD/VMB) (02/10/91)
Responding to Carl Wright:
No, the ideas I see regarding the Baltimore-DC area aren't all that
hard. I just got through checking out some zipcodes and phone
prefixes near the future 301/410 border (I'll be looking for some
phone numbers around a portion of the Carroll-Frederick county line),
and I already figured out North Beach, Maryland 20714, which I would
list as 410 in the zip-area directory when it picks up the 301/410
split. The prefixes serving the North Beach area are currently in
area 301, and are:
257 -- apparently the "default" and apparently what is found on pay
phones; goes into 410.
855 -- although it was/is North Beach on a phone bill, it is a DC-metro
exchange and stays in 301.
Similar prefixes exist around Chicago (right?) and Los Angeles. In
the Los Angeles area, there are prefixes which show up on a phone bill
as Los Angeles (different procedure from what I just cited for North
Beach), but which serve areas beyond Los Angeles (such as Burbank and
Pasadena, even though the other prefixes serving Burbank and Pasadena
went into area 818.
Back in Maryland:
In Laurel, the "Waterloo-service" prefixes go into 410 because they
are local to Baltimore, and the other Laurel prefixes (which are local
to Washington) stay in 301.
>...Carl Moore is quoted as saying that his zip code will
>be splitting along the with area code split.
The only remark by me about a split zip code might be:
> As far as I know (not having been to Fort Meade),
> the other phones on that post are in the Odenton exchange, which is
> going into 410 (causing a problem as to how to list the area code for
> zip code 20755?).
I was writing about 301-688 prefix, which is to stay in 301. 20755,
which is between Baltimore and Washington, is not "my" zip code, as I
live in Delaware, and (w/r to Washington) have an office about 30
miles beyond Baltimore. When I write about zipcodes and phone
prefixes, I might be writing about areas I don't call, write or visit!
I am quite well aware that phone prefixes and zip codes do not
necessarily match, and a concern I sent to the publisher of the
zip-area directory is that if a zipcode falls along an area code
border, I end up having to list it based on where a "majority" of that
zipcode falls. I am hesitant about pointing out specific split
zipcodes, because there are probably a slew of such splits which I
have no way of knowing.
[Moderator's Note: We've got cases here where 'Post Office Chicago',
i.e. 606-anything extends into a few suburbs which are now 708. The
rule you can generally follow here is that 606xx = 312 and 600xx,
601xx, 602xx, 604xx = 708 or 815; however 815 takes in several more
<Z>one <I>mprovement <P>lan codes as well. PAT]
wright@ais.org (Carl Wright) (02/15/91)
This is in reference to the article from which I incorrectly quoted.
^^^^^^^^^^^
Please accept my sincere apology. I also learned that article numbers
are local and arbitrary and no guide to anyone except me. I stand by
my comments about zip-to-area code mappings, but I was all wrong to
say that Carl Moore said it.
Carl Wright | Lynn-Arthur Associates, Inc.
Internet: wright@ais.org | 2350 Green Rd., #160
Voice: 1 313 995 5590 EST | Ann Arbor, MI 48105
[Moderator's Note: That's okay. You are of course correct that zip
codes have no connection with telephone area codes. One new thing you
will see in the Digest (comp.dcom.telecom version) as of today is a
new set of reference numbers. We are now generating our own reference
numbers for each message rather than leaving it up to the gateway
machine (which had been accuvax and is now casbah.acns.nwu.edu). The
message reference numbers you see from now on will include the volume,
issue and Digest message number with the word 'telecom' in front. By
including this reference number in REplies (as most of you do anyway)
it will tell people which issue to look in for the original. The old
system of saying 'in 123456@accuvax' was not very descriptive. The new
system should make it much easier to cross reference old items. And
to repeat, in case you missed it yesterday: TELECOM Digest will be
continued in comp.dcom.telecom as before. No changes being made. PAT]