sirakide%cell.mot.COM@uunet.uu.net (Dean Sirakides) (11/30/89)
I know there has been alot of discussion on the net of new area codes vs. 8 digit phone numbers in the wake of the Chicago split to 708...but I would like to touch the subject once again. The idea of switching to 8 digit phone numbers was brought up several times, but always quickly dismissed as impractical. The problem cited usually involves the older (ancient!) switches still in use being unable to handle eight digits. I do not doubt this as I have seen at least one Latch Bar switch in operation, but what if we did this: Switch all US phone numbers to eight digits by adding a '0' to the end. Now, in large metro areas, the ESS's would be adapted to route the 8 digit calls (hopefully as a matter of new software). This would free up alot of numbers in the congested areas. Now, to call an area served by a non-adaptable switch (which I agree would be most areas due to the expense), you still dial eight digits, but the eighth digit simply goes unnoticed by the target system. In other words, all numbers in these areas would end in a zero. This scheme would add numbers to the large areas, and still maintain a seven digit pattern in less congested areas. Any thoughts? Dean (uunet!motcid!sirakide) P.S. I concede the major implications of changing the many databases and application programs that exist, but hey, continual area code splits aren't the greatest either.
ijk@violin.att.com (Ihor J Kinal) (12/02/89)
Somewhere I was told that the phone company [MA BELL] did studies in
the distant past, and found that people remember 7 digits much better
than 8. Consequently, any conversion would have to take that into
account. {Although SSNs are longer, how many people have memorized
more than one ?? [e.g., their spouses]. Whereas I can easily recite
several phone numbers. }
Ihor Kinal
cbnewsh!ijk
<standard disclaimer - I'm a software person, not a telephony expert.
Even though I work at Bell Labs, I did NOT hear this here, but elsewhere.
What the official ATT position on this issue is, I have no idea>deej@bellcore.bellcore.com> (12/05/89)
In article <telecom-v09i0546m03@chinacat.lonestar.org>, ijk@violin.att.com (Ihor J Kinal) writes: > Somewhere I was told that the phone company [MA BELL] did studies in > the distant past, and found that people remember 7 digits much better > than 8. There's a famous work on short-term memory called "Seven Plus-or-Minus Two". I don't recall the author (I guess it's not *that* famous), but the basic conclusion is that a person's short-term memory can hold, on average seven "chunks" of information, plus or minus two. Of course, most people don't remember phone numbers as digits, but as collections of numbers. My phone number, for example, isn't stored in my memory as "2", "0", "1", etc..., but as "201", "758", "40", "99". Four chunks. Same with SSN -- "XXX", "XX", "XXXX". David G Lewis ...!bellcore!nvuxr!deej (@ Bellcore Navesink Research & Engineering Center) "If this is paradise, I wish I had a lawnmower."