U5434122@ucsvc.ucs.unimelb.edu.au (01/11/90)
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. Most telephone numbers stay the same, with the addition of another digit, and for those that change, working out the new number is very easy. Taking Los Angeles area 213 as an example: 1. Abolish area code 213 and in its place establish areas 225 and 228. This will mean that all areas using 225 and 228 as prefixes must remove 1+7D toll dialling. 2. There is no geographical isolation of 225 and 228. Instead, the areas are assigned to the prefixes 2xx-5xx and 6xx-9xx. 3. Old numbers beginning with 5 and 8 have their first digit changed to 7 and 3 respectively. 4. Dialling within the 225-228 area *must* begin with either a 5 or an 8. Any attempt to dial a number beginning with 2,3,4,6,7,9 should be directed a recorded message to remind about the new system. This should last several months. The new numbering system would be: Old New 213-2xx- 225-2xx- 213-3xx- 225-3xx- 213-4xx- 225-4xx- 213-5xx- 225-7xx- 213-6xx- 228-6xx- 213-7xx- 228-7xx- 213-8xx- 228-3xx- 213-9xx- 228-9xx- There would certainly be teething problems, especially for people whose old numbers began with 5 or 8, since there can be no slow change-over for them. The benefits of this system are many, including the retention of LA as a large community, and an inexhaustible supply of new prefixes, by simply adding new pseudo-areas 22N when everyone was used to 8 digit dialling. 8 digit numbers could provide up to 80 million services, and I doubt that even the USA's voracious telephone appetite would use them all. Cellular sevices could all be moved to say 229, allowing easy identification of a number as mobile. Lastly, by using area codes in the series NXX (X not 1,0 ) 80 megalopoli could have their area code worries removed forever. It would even be possible to merge areas already separated. e.g. Assign 332 and 337 to 212 and 335 and 339 to 718. After a year or so, when everyone is used to 8 digits the old 212 and 718 areas would be part of the 33N area. Comments anyone?? Daniel O'Callaghan, u5434122@ucsvc.unimelb.edu.au
johnl@esegue.segue.boston.ma.us (John R. Levine) (01/11/90)
In article <2748@accuvax.nwu.edu> you write: >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. ... It seems to be difficult for people from other countries to understand how deeply ingrained 3+7 digit phone numbers are in North America. It is not practical to suggest that we change to anything different. Both central office equipment and premises equipment such as PBXes, memory dialers, toll restrictors, etc. have the 7 and 10 digit lengths wired in. Also, now that every dialable phone number in North America has been ten digits since about 1955, an entire generation has grown up with 3+7 numbers and it's ingrained in our dialing fingers. I'm 35 and I don't remember anything else. By the way, on another thread, I suspect that the reason that some areas are going to 1+NPA+number rather than just the number for intra-NPA toll calls is due to the limitations of old exchanges that need a leading 1 for tandem access. As noted elsewhere, toll charging is complicated enough that "dial 1 for toll" really isn't very meaningful any more. Regards, John Levine, johnl@esegue.segue.boston.ma.us, {spdcc|ima|lotus}!esegue!johnl PS: Didn't mention Caller ID at all. Oops, did it again. :-)
gaarder@tcgould.tn.cornell.edu (Steve Gaarder) (01/12/90)
If you really want 8-digit dialing in large cities, the way to do it is to use the last digit of the NPA code. To use the numbers in the last example, LA could get NPA codes 225 and 226 (after interchangeable NPA codes are activated). Local calls would be 5xxx-xxxx or 6xxx-xxxx. Long distance calls would use area code 22 followed by 8 digits of number. This would not require changes to any systems outside the local area. I don't think this is worth the trouble, though. We all have 7-digit phone numbers as a standard, and having 8-digit in parts of the country would add vast user confusion (almost as bad as the introduction of COCOTs). Steve Gaarder
deej@bellcore.bellcore.com (David Lewis) (01/12/90)
In article <2748@accuvax.nwu.edu>, U5434122@ucsvc.ucs.unimelb.edu.au 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. Most telephone numbers stay the same, with the addition of > another digit, and for those that change, working out the new number > is very easy. > Taking Los Angeles area 213 as an example: > 1. Abolish area code 213 and in its place establish areas 225 and 228. > This will mean that all areas using 225 and 228 as prefixes must > remove 1+7D toll dialling. In effect, this means that all of the North American Numbering Plan must cutover to fully interchangeable codes. Although you restrict it to 225 and 228 at the start, you assume that farther down the line 22X is the next step, and 33X and other prefixes will be used in other areas. As time goes to infinity, the number of NPAs that have none of these prefixes assigned goes very, very rapidly to 0. Therefore, the entire NANP must cutover to fully interchangeable codes. This is, when it occurs around 1995, going to be *the* biggest and most expensive change to the NANP. > 2. There is no geographical isolation of 225 and 228. Instead, the > areas are assigned to the prefixes 2xx-5xx and 6xx-9xx. > 3. Old numbers beginning with 5 and 8 have their first digit changed > to 7 and 3 respectively. > 4. Dialling within the 225-228 area *must* begin with either a 5 or an > 8. Any attempt to dial a number beginning with 2,3,4,6,7,9 should be > directed a recorded message to remind about the new system. This > should last several months. Let me see if I understand this. The number that used to be 213-455-XXXX would now be 225-455-XXXX, but would be, within this NPA, dialed as 5-455-XXXX. From outside this NPA, it would be dialed 1-225-455-XXXX. Dialing within the NPA would be 8-digit; dialing to outside the NPA would be 11-digit (1+NPA+NXX-XXXX). > The benefits of this system are many, including the retention of LA as > a large community, and an inexhaustible supply of new prefixes, by > simply adding new pseudo-areas 22N when everyone was used to 8 digit > dialling. Here's a trap. You say above that, in a "pseudo-area" 2 2 5/8, CO codes can not begin with 5 or 8. So if you add "pseudo-areas" of the format 22N (I think you meant 22X -- N excludes 0/1, X doesn't), this restricts you from having CO codes beginning with N (X). Therefore, CO codes don't begin with any number (as CO codes cannot begin with 0 or 1). > Comments anyone?? Well, you asked for it. First, the implementation side. As mentioned above, this is not "easy to implement" -- it means cutting over the entire NANP to fully interchangeable codes. I've been trying to figure out how, exactly, to phrase the other problems I see with it -- the usability problems, as opposed to the implementation problems. I think what it comes down to is -- why bother screwing around with 8-digit dialing when we can go straight to 10-digit dialing, in a manner consistent with the current dialing syntax, continuing to provide 7-digit dialing for HNPA calls? The proposal here would: * Change on the order of 1.5M 7-digit phone numbers (all 5/8XX-XXXX numbers) * Change dialing syntax from 7-digit to 8-digit in some -- but not all -- NPAs, therefore removing the universality of HNPA dialing in the NANP (Now, in your home NPA, you dial 7 digits. In this proposal, in some home NPAs you dial 7 digits, in some you dial 8 digits.) * Provide less than an order of magnitude increase in available numbers, compared to more than two orders of magnitude increase by going to fully interchangeable codes * Not be any less expensive to implement than fully interchangeable codes. Maybe I'm missing something obvious, but this seems to present all the disadvantages of fully interchangeable codes, add new disadvantages of its own, and not provide any advantages... David G Lewis ...!bellcore!nvuxr!deej (@ Bellcore Navesink Research & Engineering Center) "If this is paradise, I wish I had a lawnmower."