"John R. Covert 10-Jan-1990 0822" <covert@covert.enet.dec.com> (01/10/90)
Daniel O'Callaghan at The University of Melbourne writes: >Here is a way to ease area code congestion without being too difficult >to implement in North America. It basically means that the affected >area switches to 8 digit numbers without any other area needing to know. Unfortunately, due to the presence of a large number of No. 5 Crossbar central offices throughout North America, changing the length of telephone numbers is not technically possible without billions of dollars in expenditure in other areas. Unlike countries where most telephone service is provided by either ancient step-by-step or modern electronic offices, the North American Integrated Numbering Plan Area (U.S., Canada, and the 809 Caribbean) is chock full of central offices of an intermediate type. These common control offices store the number dialled, the _entire_ number, in what is known as an Originating Register. This is a hardware register made out of relays, and it has the capability of storing three, seven, or ten digits, plus a flag indicating whether "1" or "0" was dialled first. To implement eight digits _anywhere_ in North America would require costly modifications _throughout_ North America to every originating register in every remaining No. 5 XBar office, many of which are not scheduled for retirement until sometime in the first two decades of the next century. >Cellular sevices could all be moved to say 229, allowing easy identification >of a number as mobile. It is not clear that it is desirable for mobile numbers to be identified as mobile numbers. Why should anyone care? /john
U5434122@ucsvc.ucs.unimelb.edu.au (01/13/90)
In article <2789@accuvax.nwu.edu>, covert@covert.enet.dec.com (John R. Covert) writes: > Daniel O'Callaghan at The University of Melbourne writes: >>Here is a way to ease area code congestion without being too difficult >>to implement in North America. It basically means that the affected >>area switches to 8 digit numbers without any other area needing to know. > Unfortunately, due to the presence of a large number of No. 5 Crossbar > central offices throughout North America, changing the length of > telephone numbers is not technically possible without billions of > dollars in expenditure in other areas. > common control offices store the number dialled, the _entire_ number, > in what is known as an Originating Register. This is a hardware > register made out of relays, and it has the capability of storing > three, seven, or ten digits, plus a flag indicating whether "1" or "0" > was dialled first. I am not suggesting that subscribers' numbers be made 8 digits. What I propose is that two or more areas are not geographically distinct and have the same first two digits. Also, dialling 1+3+7 should be mandatory for *all* calls, except that '5' is an abbreviation for '1-225-' and '8' is an abbreviation for '1-228-'. Only those central offices in the affected area need to be changed so that the 'flag' register indicates '1','0','5' or'8'. All other central offices can continue quite happliy believing that (225) and (228) are totally different, and for wiring purposes they can be. Each central office in the affected area is in either (225) or (228), in *exactly* the same way COs were split between (312) and (708) in Chicago. Is impossible to convert the flag to handle 4 digits? If these COs are Stored Program Control Crossbar, can't they be programmed to substitute 1-225- for '5' and 1-228- for '8' on the first digit? >>Cellular sevices could all be moved to say 229, allowing easy identification >>of a number as mobile. > It is not clear that it is desirable for mobile numbers to be identified > as mobile numbers. Why should anyone care? In Australia the caller pays the charges for calling a mobile number. The charges are the same as long distance rate 165-745 km, 39c/min 8am-6pm, 26c/min 6pm-10pm and 15c/min 10pm-8am+Saturday night and all day Sunday. Since the caller pays, it is nice to know before you ring the number. Also, cellular phones are not wasting prefixes in the normal area codes. Daniel u5434122@ucsvc.unimelb.edu.au
paul@devon.lns.pa.us (Paul Sutcliffe Jr.) (01/15/90)
Daniel O'Callaghan at The University of Melbourne writes: +--------- | Cellular sevices could all be moved to say 229, allowing easy identification | of a number as mobile. +--------- You mean all cellular phones, those in both the A and B systems, in any given areacode should be 229-xxxx? That allows no more than 10000 phones. My "home" system covers less than 1/3 of the geography of the 717 areacode, yet has over 2500 subscribers alone. I'll leave the rest of the math to the reader. - paul INTERNET: paul@devon.lns.pa.us | If life's a bitch, then UUCP: ...!rutgers!devon!paul | we must be her puppies.