mshiels@uunet.uu.net (05/27/90)
[Moderator's Note: Although we have run similar lists from time to time, since new readers are always asking for a copy and not everyone has access to the Telecom Archives, here is another copy. This one is somewhat more up to date, since it includes projections for the next two years. PT] 1-200- (Unused) 1-201- New Jersey 1-202- Washington DC 1-203- Connecticut 1-204- Manitoba 1-205- Alabama 1-206- Washington 1-207- Maine 1-208- Idaho 1-209- California 1-210- (Unused) 1-211- (Unused) 1-212- New York NY 1-213- Los Angeles CA 1-214- Texas 1-215- Pennsylvania 1-216- Ohio 1-217- Illinois 1-218- Minnesota 1-219- Indiana 1-300- (Unused) 1-301- Maryland 1-302- Delaware 1-303- Colorado 1-304- West Virginia 1-305- Florida 1-306- Saskatchewan 1-307- Wyoming 1-308- Nebraska 1-309- Illinois 1-310- Los Angeles, CA (effective '92) 1-311- (Unused) 1-312- Chicago IL 1-313- Detroit MI 1-314- Missouri 1-315- New York 1-316- Kansas 1-317- Indiana 1-318- Louisiana 1-319- Iowa 1-400- (Unused) 1-401- Rhode Island 1-402- Nebraska 1-403- AB,NWT,Yukon 1-404- Georgia 1-405- Oklahoma 1-406- Montana 1-407- Florida 1-408- California 1-409- Texas 1-410- (Unused) 1-411- (Unused) 1-412- Pennsylvania 1-413- Massachusetts 1-414- Wisconsin 1-415- San Fran, CA 1-417- Missouri 1-418- Quebec 1-419- Ohio 1-500- (Unused) 1-501- Arkansas 1-502- Kentucky 1-503- Oregon 1-504- Louisiana 1-505- New Mexico 1-506- New Brunswick 1-507- New Mexico 1-508- Massachusetts 1-509- Washington 1-510- California (effective '91) 1-511- (Unused) 1-512- Texas 1-513- Ohio 1-514- Montreal, PQ 1-515- Iowa 1-516- New York 1-517- Michigan 1-518- New York 1-519- S.W. Ontario 1-600- (Unused) 1-601- Mississippi 1-602- Arizona 1-603- New Hampshire 1-604- British Columbia 1-605- South Dakota 1-606- Kentucky 1-607- New York 1-608- Wisconsin 1-609- New Jersey 1-610- (TWX - Unused) 1-611- (Unused) 1-612- Minnesota 1-613- Ottawa,Kingston ON 1-614- Ohio 1-615- Tennessee 1-616- Michigan 1-617- Massachusetts 1-618- Illinois 1-619- California 1-700- Special Services 1-701- North Dakota 1-702- Nevada 1-703- Virginia 1-704- North Carolina 1-705- Barrie, Peterborough, North Bay ON 1-706- (was Mexico - currently unused) 1-707- California 1-708- Chgo. Suburbs, IL 1-709- Newfoundland 1-710- Federal Gov't 1-711- (Unused) 1-712- Iowa 1-713- Texas 1-714- California 1-715- Wisconsin 1-716- New York 1-717- Pennsylvania 1-718- New York, NY 1-719- Colorado 1-800- 800 Service (toll-free) 1-801- Utah 1-802- Vermont 1-803- South Carolina 1-804- Virginia 1-805- California 1-806- Texas 1-807- NW Ontario 1-808- Hawaii 1-809- Various Caribbean Islands; Puerto Rico 1-810- (TWX - Unused) 1-811- (Unused) 1-812- Indiana 1-813- Florida 1-814- Pennsylvania 1-815- Illinois 1-816- Missouri 1-817- Texas 1-818- California 1-819- Western Quebec, eastern NWT 1-900- 900 service - can be costly! 1-901- Tennessee 1-902- Nova Scotia, Prince Edward Island 1-903- Texas (effective fall '90) 1-904- Florida 1-905- (was Mexico City - now unused) 1-906- Michigan 1-907- Alaska 1-908- New Jersey (effective early '91) 1-909- (currently unused) 1-910- (TWX - Unused) 1-911- (Unused) 1-912- Georgia 1-913- Kansas 1-914- New York 1-915- Texas 1-916- California1 1-917- (unused) 1-918- Oklahoma 1-919- North Carolina
rdt139z@monu6.cc.monash.edu.au (Jim Breen) (05/30/90)
I like that! The correct title of the posting would have been "My List of *Other* North American Area Codes". The list skips 416. The article was posted from tmsoft, in Toronto, in area code 416. Mark Brader, utzoo!sq!msb, msb@sq.com C unions never strike!
colin@uunet.uu.net (colin_plumb) (05/30/90)
I just came back from England, and noticed that one of the country codes they listed in their phone book was 1 809 (they even put the space in). How many countries have no country code but "1"? Colin
news@accuvax.nwu.edu (USENET News System) (05/30/90)
If I remember correctly all N11 code are resevered for special services such as 411 - directory assistance, 611 - trouble reporting, and 911 - emergency service. I heard San Francisco and Oakland are going to split the current area code in two. Do you know when and what it will be? Mark Kallas
Juan Valdez <sc247111@gwusun.gwu.edu> (05/31/90)
In your message, you listed 1-200 as an unused area code. Actually, dialing 200-555-1212 (or I'm sure any combination after the 555 will work) without a 1 before, will result in a recording reading back the phone number of the line you are calling from. I believe 811 will work the same way in some areas.
"DOUGLAS SCOTT REUBEN)" <DREUBEN@eagle.wesleyan.edu> (05/31/90)
Something else I noticed (from another one of Pat's postings, this one
dealing with the "new" area codes in a revised area code list...):
Perhaps I missed this in the discussion, but I noticed area codes like
"411", "211", "611", "811", "511", and "200".
Now 411 is used quite universally for Directory Assistance (DA)
611 is used similarly for repair.
811 is used by Pac*Bell for calls to their offices, etc.
211 is used in New York City to call for credit. (The ops. don't handle
credit requests there.)
511 is used in Rcohester for ANA. (or whatever you call the automatic
number announcement.)
911 is used for emergency services
200 is used for the same purpose in NE Tel territory. (200-222-2222,
I think...).
While I realize that it is POSSIBLE to use these numbers as area codes
by placing a 1+ in front of them to distinguish the "area code" call
from the "local service" call, in many areas, these X11 services take
a 1+ in front of them.
For example, in Connecticut, you must dial 1+411 for DA. (I think this
is done so DA access can be restricted ... you don't need to dial
1+611 for repair.) I think this may also be so for Louisiana and some
areas of Oregon, but I can't recall specifically ... (anyone in Bend,
Oregon know if you need to dial 1+411? Or was it 1+555-1212? I never
did it because they charge *50 cents* for a DA call from a payphone!)
In some areas in New England, you need to dial 1-200-222-2222 for ANA
(this doesn't seem to be universal though).
Moreover, 1-611 is permitted (although by no means required) from what
appear to be 1/AESS exchanges in the New York City area.
So if those numbers are to be used as area codes, how will the present
system be changed to accommodate the new are codes? Won't this be VERY
confusing, as most customers who know "411" as directory assistance,
"611" as repair, and "911" as Emerncy services tend to think of such
numbers as "special" and thus reserved for such special uses?
I would think that if anything, these numbers will be assigned last,
way after 510, 310, etc. are all used up.
Additionally, when we go to full 1+ dialing, where (almost) any three
digits can be an area code, won't 1+xxx-xxxx dialing have to go away?
IE, right now, I dial 1-890-1611 for NY Tel repair (upstate). Won't
this be confusing to the switch when they assign area code "890"? IE,
the switch will have to "time-out" to see if you mean "area code 890
plus 7 more digits" or "toll call to number 890-xxxx". I'd personally
prefer, if it becomes necessary, to get rid of in-area code 1+ dialing
over having to wait for a call to timeout ... (Of course this is
ALREADY a problem with 0+xxx-xxxx calls, but that can wait till
another time! :-) )
Doug
dreuben@wesleyan.bitnet/@eagle.wesleyan.edu David Tamkin <0004261818@mcimail.com> (06/01/90)
Doug Reuben wrote in volume 10, issue 400: |Additionally, when we go to full 1+ dialing, where (almost) any three |digits can be an area code, won't 1+xxx-xxxx dialing have to go away? |I'd personally prefer, if it becomes necessary, to get rid of in-area |code 1+ dialing over having to wait for a call to timeout ... Eight-digit dialing will have to vanish. Toll calls within one's own area code will be dialed NXX-XXXX or 1-NPA-NXX-XXXX, depending on whichever your telco picks. (A few telcos do or will allow both.) |Of course this is ALREADY a problem with 0+xxx-xxxx calls, but that can |wait till another time! In area codes where N[0/1]X prefixes are in use, 0+ calling within the area code already needs all eleven digits. That will be the case throughout North America when NNX area codes go live. On the topic of Michael Shiels's original submission with this subject, I thought for sure Patrick would be bombarded with follow-ups pointing out that area code 917 is not unassigned as Michael wrote but rather reserved for the next split of area code 212. But it's been three or four days now and no one else has said it. David Tamkin P. O. Box 7002 Des Plaines IL 60018-7002 +1 708 518 6769 MCI Mail: 426-1818 CIS: 73720,1570 GEnie: D.W.TAMKIN +1 312 693 0591
mshiels@uunet.uu.net (06/01/90)
What happened was I posted a list of 416 DETAILED exchanges and a North American area code list and a world wide area code list. WHICH TOGETHER make up a database file I use for some software. The last two were reposted by the Moderator but the first detailed 416 list has been posted before so he didn't post it.
HAMER524@ruby.vcu.edu (06/02/90)
Jim Breen <rdt139z@monu6.cc.monash.edu.au> writes, quoting our Moderator: >[ lots of country codes deleted ] >> 974- Qatar 976- Mongolia >> 977- Nepal 98- Iran >> [Moderator's Note: The above are always prefaced with either 011 (for > ****** >Patrick, Patrick! PLEASE remember that your group is read all over the >world. Your comment above is true for callers in the USA, and >practically nowhere else. International access codes differ from Similarly, Patrick, I really think that with respect to the list of US area codes you posted, writing them all as "1-XXX" was inappropriate. Aside from the fact the the "1" is an access code, and not part of the phone number, it _certainly_ is the wrong access code for most parts of the world. To draw an analogy, that would be like saying that your e-mail address for the archives is "FTP LOGIN anonymous/guest lcs.mit.edu." That may be what one user types to get to them, but the FTP LOGIN ANONYMOUS/GUEST is not part of the internet node. Of course, almost everyone seems to treat the access code as if it were part of the phone number, but that doesn't make it accurate. [Moderator's Note: The 1- designation was in the list when it was forwarded to me. As the compiler of that list already pointed out, it was intended for a specific application on his computer. You are correct that the 1- is not technically part of the phone number, but there is a certain USA bias in this Digest, with between 85-90 percent of our readers being in this country. Many articles here will be phrased for the US readers, with no offense intended to others; it is impossible to cover all possibilities all the time. PT]
rmadison@euler.berkeley.edu (Linc Madison) (06/03/90)
In article <8584@accuvax.nwu.edu> HAMER524@ruby.vcu.edu writes: >X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 10, Issue 409, Message 14 of 14 >Similarly, Patrick, I really think that with respect to the list of US >area codes you posted, writing them all as "1-XXX" was inappropriate. >Aside from the fact the the "1" is an access code, and not part of the >phone number, it _certainly_ is the wrong access code for most parts >of the world. Not nearly as inappropriate as you seem to want to make out. Aside from the simple defense Patrick offered (that's the way it was sent to him), there is also the fact that you are just plain dead wrong when you say "it _certainly_ is the wrong access code for most parts of the world." No, it _certainly_ is the RIGHT access code for the ENTIRE world. Additional access codes may be required ahead of it, but no matter where you go in the world, "1" is the access code for the U.S. You could, with equal validity, say that the city code for Amsterdam is +31-20. Linc Madison = rmadison@euler.berkeley.edu
"Robert M. Hamer" <HAMER524@ruby.vcu.edu> (06/04/90)
On Sun, 3 Jun 90 03:29:38 PDT Linc Madison <rmadison@euler.berkeley. edu> writes: (With respect to whether "1+" is part of the phone number (in this case, the area code) or not: >you say "it _certainly_ is the wrong access code for most parts of the >world." No, it _certainly_ is the RIGHT access code for the ENTIRE >world. Additional access codes may be required ahead of it, but no >matter where you go in the world, "1" is the access code for the U.S. I really am not sure this is worth going on about, because I don't know if the rest of the Digest is interested in the topic or not, but... The point is that the "1+" is an access code, and not part of the phone number. In the US or elsewhere. Actually, when I use my Sprint FON card, a "1+" never plays a role in the dialing: it seems to be "0+"; I don't know about other calling/credit cards. And when I call from a hotel, using whatever rip-off system the hotel has (Yes, I know, but my company will cheerfully pay large phone bills billed to the hotel room, but has trouble with me telling them that I called using my own Sprint card) as often as not, I dial "8+" or some such code, getting me direct access to an LD trunk, from which I dial the area code and phone number. As a matter of fact, as I type this, it occurs to me that in my office, I dial "8" to get a LD dial tone, and then I dial just the area code, no "1+". The point I am trying to make is that what we dial is divided into access codes and phone number, and they are not one and the same. We ought to be clearer about stating what the phone number is when we claim that what we are giving out is the phone number. When I first started using the Internet, I had a terrible time guessing what part of the From: or Reply-to: field was indeed the actual user@node, and what was some sort of routing information the various intermediate mailers had stuck on in an effort to provide me with something that would work, even if much of it turned out to be unnecessary. Again, it may not be worth it to start a thread on it, but I would assert that the "1+" is an access code, and the area code does not include it, and neither does the phone number.
Bob Goudreau <goudreau@dg-rtp.dg.com> (06/06/90)
In article <8653@accuvax.nwu.edu>, HAMER524@ruby.vcu.edu (Robert M. Hamer) writes: > No, it _certainly_ is the RIGHT access code for the ENTIRE > >world. Additional access codes may be required ahead of it, but no > >matter where you go in the world, "1" is the access code for the U.S. > I really am not sure this is worth going on about, because I don't > know if the rest of the Digest is interested in the topic or not, > but... The point is that the "1+" is an access code, and not part of > the phone number. In the US or elsewhere. Actually, when I use my > Sprint FON card, a "1+" never plays a role in the dialing: it seems to > be "0+"; I don't know about other calling/credit cards. > Again, it may not be worth it to start a thread on it, but I would > assert that the "1+" is an access code, and the area code does not > include it, and neither does the phone number. No, you're completely missing his point: the "1" is INDEED part of every phone number in the US, because the country code for the North American Numbering Plan (US, Canada, much of Caribbean) is "1". This country code is not to be confused with the intra-NANP access code for direct-dialed inter-area-code calls, which also happens to be "1" in most areas of the NANP. (In some, it's the null string, but that will have to change in a few years with the advent of NXX area codes.) But in all direct-dialed calls into the NANP from outside of the NANP, the country code is required. In particular, the string "1" must be dialed after the international access code (which varies from country to country; many countries use "00") and before the area code and local number. So it's certainly valid to state that the ordered pair, say, "+1 802" identifies the area code for Vermont, just as it's correct to note that "+44 71" identifies the area code for inner London. Bob Goudreau +1 919 248 6231 Data General Corporation 62 Alexander Drive goudreau@dg-rtp.dg.com Research Triangle Park, NC 27709 ...!mcnc!rti!xyzzy!goudreau USA