"John R. Covert 09-Jan-1990 0002" <covert@covert.enet.dec.com> (01/08/90)
From: Greg Monti, National Public Radio; forwarded by John R. Covert How to Dial Long Distance Mark Brader <msb@sq.sq.com> writes: > Our moderator writes: >> ... area codes *as we know them* will be used up is 1995. I think 1993 >> might be a better estimate. From that point on, area codes will resemble >> prefixes, and dialing 1 before long distance numbers everywhere will be >> mandatory. ... > Presumably by "long distance" he meant here "to another area code". Actually, one or both can currently apply. My understanding of the North American Numbering Plan is that a leading "1" was *always* intended to mean "area code next." The use of it with a seven-digit number after it is a hack implemented by phone companies originally as a "get out of this central office" code in the old, step- by-step days in many areas. Later, as people got used to it meaning "long distance next," the telcos and their regulators kept the "1" for that purpose. 1+7 digits only works FROM area codes where there are no interchangeable codes (prefixes that look like area codes). Once interchangeable codes are implemented, users within that area code can no longer use 1+7 digits. Once the *whole NANP* goes to interchangeable codes in 1995 (or whenever "Time T" it turns out to be), 1+7 digit dialing will have to be eliminated in *all* NANP area codes. > The thing that most distresses me about this whole > area-code exhaustion business is that it'll mean that we'll LOSE the > possibility of a leading 1 ACTUALLY meaning, as it still does where I > am, "long distance". Not necessarily. The standard seems to have been laid out already. Those places will go to your "Syntax 3" system so BOTH effects of the "1" will apply. "1" will mean "long distance" *and* "area code next." 1+7 digits will be replaced by 1+10 digits. > To be complete I should mention Syntax 4, which I think was formerly > common and is becoming rare: leading 1 is never used, and one dials > NNX-XXXX for any call within one's area, 10 digits for calls to other > areas. You are correct. See below. > Can anyone comment on the relative prevalence of the four syntaxes > that I have called 1, 2, 3, and 4 in North America, or better yet, > actually provide a list of what areas use what syntax? (Note: My > interest here is in major operating companies, not, say, Pinnacles.) Okay. First a summary: Syntax 1: Local within area code: 7 digits Toll within area code: 1 + 7 digits Local to another area code: 7 digits Toll to another area code: 1 + 10 digits Syntax 2: Local within area code: 7 digits Toll within area code: 7 digits Local outside area code: 1 + 10 digits Toll outside area code: 1 + 10 digits Syntax 3: Local within area code: 7 digits Toll within area code: 1 + 10 digits Local outside area code: 7 digits Toll outside area code: 1 + 10 digits Syntax 4: Local within area code: 7 digits Toll within area code: 7 digits Local outside area code: 10 digits Toll outside area code: 10 digits "Syntax 1" is the most common in the USA and Canada. It generally applies in areas and states and provinces where the area codes are so large that most, or many calls within it are toll. Population density is small enough that prefixes can be assigned in a "conserved" way, so that prefixes in nearby parts of adjacent area codes are not ambiuguous with the same prefixes in the home area code. This allows 7 digit dialing across the area code boundary, but only for local calls. VIRTUALLY ALL places that now have Syntax 1 dialing will convert to Syntax 3 dialing in 1995, or whenever "Time T" is. Massachusetts' 617 is currently a variation on Syntax 1 (local outside area code is now 1 + 10 digits) which will change to Syntax 2 eventually, according to previous posttings on this Digest. Neighboring 508 has the same Syntax 1 exception, but is staying that way indefinitely. Michigan's 313 is a Syntax 1 area code moving to Syntax 2. There, the 1 + 7 digits has become a mess, with some local calls requiring it and Michigan Bell is going to straighten it out by eliminating 1 + 7 digits. "Syntax 2" is used in the biggest of the big cities where many area codes may be within the local calling area and where mandatory local measured service is common and where interchangeable codes are now used. Most places with Syntax 2 now had Syntax 4 up until about 1980 when the first interchangeable codes were issued as prefixes. Syntax 2 areas are 213 (and the new 310, when implemented), 818, 415 (and 510), 212, 718, 201 (and 908), 312 and 708, I believe. Area 609 in New Jersey is a variation of Syntax 2. Its exception: local calls outside the area code are also 7 digits. "Syntax 3" is the "new standard" for after "Time T". It is already in effect in 404, 919, 703, 202, 301, 214 (and the new 903?) and soon 416. Some areas which use this already are adding variations due to the number crunch: 214, 202, 301 and 703 will use 10 digits for local outside area code. That appears to be a new standard for crowded areas already using Syntax 3. "Syntax 4" is a rarity: places that still don't have interchangeable codes but do have large calling areas with mandatory local measured service. 516, 914 (maybe not all of it, though) and 408. Syntax 4 areas switch to Syntax 2 after "Time T". Did I get everything? Greg Monti, Arlington, Virginia work +1 202 822-2459
"Fred R. Goldstein" <goldstein@carafe.enet.dec.com> (01/10/90)
In article <2724@accuvax.nwu.edu>, covert@covert.enet.dec.com (John R. Covert) writes... > From: Greg Monti, National Public Radio; forwarded by John R. Covert >Syntax 1: Local within area code: 7 digits > Toll within area code: 1 + 7 digits Or, "1 for toll" >Syntax 2: Local within area code: 7 digits > Toll within area code: 7 digits Or, "1 for area code" >Syntax 3: Local within area code: 7 digits > Toll within area code: 1 + 10 digits Or, "1 for area code, but you dial your own for toll calls) >Syntax 4: Local within area code: 7 digits > Toll within area code: 7 digits >"Syntax 3" is the "new standard" for after "Time T". It is already in >effect in 404, 919, 703, 202, 301, 214 (and the new 903?) and soon 416. I don't think so; rather, Syntax 2 is the "standard". Syntax 3 is a hack for people who are so used to "1 for toll" that intra-NPA calls must be dialed as inter-NPA. I think it's a bad idea, and not the standard. In any case, 7 digits for inter-area is wrong, since you have to specify _which_ area code you want. (NYC has 4, for instance.) Whether 2 or 3 is adopted doesn't matter to Time T; Syntax 4 must go away, as must Syntax 1, since both fail to disambiguate between prefix code and area code. Fred R. Goldstein goldstein@carafe.enet.dec.com or goldstein@delni.enet.dec.com voice: +1 508 486 7388
goldstein@carafe.enet.dec.com (Fred R. Goldstein) (01/11/90)
In article <2740@accuvax.nwu.edu>, goldstein@carafe.enet.dec.com (Fred R. Goldstein) writes... > >In article <2724@accuvax.nwu.edu>, covert@covert.enet.dec.com (John R. Covert) >writes... > >> From: Greg Monti, National Public Radio; forwarded by John R. Covert > >>Syntax 1: Local within area code: 7 digits >> Toll within area code: 1 + 7 digits >I don't think so; rather, Syntax 2 is the "standard". Syntax 3 is >a hack for people who are so used to "1 for toll" that intra-NPA calls >must be dialed as inter-NPA. I think it's a bad idea, and not the >standard. In any case, 7 digits for inter-area is wrong, since you *********** >have to specify _which_ area code you want. (NYC has 4, for instance.) Some of you might notice an obvious inconsistency in this message which originally went out over my own .signature. I corrected Greg Monti's statement that in two of his synctaces, inter-area local calls had 7 digits. But the insertions don't show the error. I don't think I did that because of the "too many insertions" rule in news. Maybe I'm paranoid and don't remember what I sent yesterday, but I think the moderator "edited" my contribution. While the edits reduced its size by at least 8 lines, it also removed the included error that I was trying to correct. I was not consulted on these edits. Last week I got a nastygram from the moderator who denied my accusations of censorship. Methinks the gent doth protest too much. fred --- Fred R. Goldstein goldstein@carafe.enet.dec.com or goldstein@delni.enet.dec.com voice: +1 508 486 7388
msb@sq.sq.com (Mark Brader) (01/12/90)
Fred Goldstein writes: > In any case, 7 digits for inter-area is wrong, since you > have to specify _which_ area code you want. (NYC has 4, for instance.) Ah, but what Greg Monti said was that "7 digits for inter-area local calls" was used only where area codes cover a large area, and not in places like NYC. For instance, I was recently in Hull (area code 819) and watched my wife make a (local) call to Ottawa (area code 613) by dialing 7 digits. For instance, 239 is an Ottawa prefix; from Hull, 239-5000 would reach the Canada's Capital Visitor Information Centre in Ottawa. The trick is that if 239 exists in area 819 at all, it's in a location that is NOT a local call from Hull, and one dials 1-239-5000 to reach it. Mark Brader "...most mistakes are made the last thing before SoftQuad Inc., Toronto you go to bed. So go to bed before you do utzoo!sq!msb, msb@sq.com the last thing." -- David Jacques Way
kent%tfd@uunet.uu.net (Kent Hauser) (01/12/90)
[ Discussion of various syntaxes used for toll dialing in US ] Of course, yet another syntax should be added. Syntax U (universal): 1 NPA NXX XXXX Should connect me with the unambiguously specified line. Allow me to give an example of it's use -- I have a modem with a `autodial' button on the front. I use it to call the office. However, I carry my modem around. Sometimes I need 7 digits, sometimes I need 11. Whenever I travel, I have to reprogram my modem's autodialer. This is stupid, because my number hasn't changed. For all of you that feel that 1+ dialing is a numbering plan issue & not a `toll call' issue, I suggest that you add the lack of `Syntax U' to your pet peeves. Kent
rpw3%rigden.wpd@sgi.com (Robert P. Warnock) (01/31/90)
In article <3222@accuvax.nwu.edu> stv@qvax2.UUCP (Steve Vance@ex2499) writes: +--------------- | Speaking of good ideas, there's one thing that a COCOT can do better | than a "Real" pay phone, at least in this part of the country: if you | dial a number that is a local call WITHOUT having inserted any money, | it says, "Please deposit 20 cents for the first 15 minutes". When you | do so, your call goes thru. When you try the same thing on a Pac*Bell | pay phone, it says "The call you have dialed requires a 20 cent | deposit." You have to hang up, deposit .20, and REDIAL. This is the | same sort of nuisance as "1 + your local areacode + local number" not | working! +--------------- To make matters more confusing and frustrating, you *can* dial the number first on the Pac*Bell pay phone if the number is not "local", that is, will cost more than 20 cents for the call. (Many, many "nearby" calls in the Bay Area are not "local".) In that case, you get a message like, "Please deposit 35 cents for the first three minutes." If you do, the call goes through. Why they can't do that for a *true* local call is a mystery indeed! Rob Warnock, MS-9U/510 rpw3@sgi.com rpw3@pei.com Silicon Graphics, Inc. (415)335-1673 Protocol Engines, Inc. 2011 N. Shoreline Blvd. Mountain View, CA 94039-7311
rmadison@euler.berkeley.edu (Linc Madison) (02/06/90)
In article <3398@accuvax.nwu.edu> Rob Warnock writes: >To make matters more confusing and frustrating, you *can* dial the >number first on the Pac*Bell pay phone if the number is not "local", >that is, will cost more than 20 cents for the call. Yup, Pac*Bell pay phones have a fun and exciting algorithm. (1) Local (Zone 1 -- within 8 miles) call a. Listen for dial tone b. Deposit 20c c. Dial number d. If you did (c) before (b), you must hang up and return to (a) (2) Non-local (all other calls) a. Listen for dial tone b. Dial number c. If you inserted any change (even the exact amount) before dialing, it will be returned to you. d. Listen for recording telling you how much money to insert e. Insert three pocketfuls of change Thus, you can walk up, insert 55c, dial your number, have your change returned to you, and then be told to insert 55c. What a system! -- Linc Madison = rmadison@euler.berkeley.edu