covert@covert.enet.dec.com (John R. Covert 03-Oct-1989 1147) (10/03/89)
From: Greg Monti Date: 26 September 1989 Re: Area Code Splits Before 1965 Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) <cmoore@brl.mil> writes: > Here is what > I have regarding splits (I don't know what if anything was done before > July 1965): > 305/904 Florida, July 1965 > 703/804 Virginia, June 1973 > 714/619 California, November 1982 > 713/409 Texas, March 1983 > 213/818 California, January 1984 > 212/718 New York, September 1984 > 303/719 Colorado, 5 Mar. 1988 > 305/407 Florida, 16 Apr. 1988 > 617/508 Massachusetts, 16 July 1988 > 312/708 Illinois, November 1989 > 202 District of Columbia & vicinity, 1 Oct. 1990 > (202 area code is being withdrawn from Md. and Va. suburbs) Actually, the 'split' here is 1 Jan 1990. The end of permissive dialing is 1 Oct 1990. > 214/903 Texas, fall 1990 > 201/908 New Jersey, 1991 > 415/510 California, 7 October 1991 (full cutover 27 January 1992) Some additional splits must have occurred prior to 1965. I thought that, when Area Codes were 'invented' in 1946 (not 'implemented,' just 'invented'), the system was as follows: - States small enough to require only one area code got a zero as the center digit, with the other digits depending on population density or urbanization (higher numbers to more rural states). The most urban, New Jersey, got the lowest number of this series, 201. DC got 202. - States big enough to require more than one area code at the outset got all codes with a 1 as the center digit. The outer digits were assigned in the same general way as described above. New York got 212, the second and third most populous cities got 213 and 312, other big cities got 214, 412, 215, etc. If this is indeed true, then ANY state which currently has more than one area code AND has at least one area code with a 0 as the center digit, must, by definition have been split at some time. Perhaps the split happened only 'on paper' before DDD was widely available. Perhaps it just occurred a long time ago. Here's a list of the affected states which obviously had only one code (with a zero in it, still serving the major city) at one time: Florida 305 (813, 904 and 407 all added later) Louisiana 504 (318 added later) Nebraska 402 (308 added) Washington 206 (509) Oklahoma 405 (918) Kentucky 502 (606) Tennessee 901 (615) Georgia 404 (912) New Jersey 201 (609) North Carolina 704 (919) Virginia 703 (804) Here's a list of states which probably always had more than one code (all of them with a 1 in the middle), which have added codes with zeros in them since: California (added 209, 408, 805, 707) Illinois (added 309) Texas (added 806, 409, soon 903) Minnesota (added 507) Massacusestts (added 508) New York (added 607) Some of these states have also added codes with 1's in them in addition to the zero codes mentioned above. For example, New York has added 718. That doesn't cloud the picture. Additional ammunition: telephone directories in New Jersey have listings in them of every prefix in the state, grouped by area code. (Wish every state did this.) In each list, a mark referring you to a footnote appears next to any central office code which is duplicated in both 201 and 609 areas. Why? Allow me to speculate: Because at one time New Jersey must have had only one area code with no prefix duplications. 609 was added early on with the knowledge that the state would outgrow 201 before DDD was widely implemented. Even though the state now had two area codes, there were still no prefix duplications and it was likely that 7-digit dialing applied statewide. (To my knowledge, New Jersey *never* had 1 + 7 digit dialing for intra-NPA toll calls.) Eventually, as the concept of area codes caught on, New Jerseyites were required to dial 10 digits to reach people in the 'other' area of their state. (This does not apply universally in NJ, however. There is some code conservation with 7 digit calls across the border allowed.) Is there anything wrong with this reasoning or the history about the zero and one codes that makes this wrong? Does anyone remember the above states splitting when they were knee-high to a grasshopper? Greg Monti, Arlington, Virginia; work +1 202 822-2459
HAMER@ruby.vcu.edu (ROBERT M. HAMER) (10/05/89)
Greg Monti via John R. Covert <covert@covert.enet.dec.com> writes: >... (To my >knowledge, New Jersey *never* had 1 + 7 digit dialing for intra-NPA toll Speaking as an ex-New Jerseyite, New Jersey until fairly recently did not require 1+ before LD phone calls at all. Now it seems to.
msmith@topaz.rutgers.edu (Mark Robert Smith) (10/05/89)
I remember visiting the house of an older person a number of years back, in NJ. They still had the announcement of the 201/609 split taped next to the phone (with VERY yellow scotch tape). I seem to remember that it was before 1965, probably before 1960, but I can't for the life of me remember the exact date. Mark Smith, KNJ2LH All Rights Reserved RPO 1604 You may redistribute this article only if those who P.O. Box 5063 receive it may do so freely. New Brunswick, NJ 08903-5063 msmith@topaz.rutgers.edu
smk@attunix.att.com (S M Krieger) (10/05/89)
> Here's a list of the affected states which obviously had only one code (with > a zero in it, still serving the major city) at one time: > New Jersey 201 (609) > Additional ammunition: telephone directories in New Jersey have listings in > them of every prefix in the state, grouped by area code. (Wish every state > did this.) In each list, a mark referring you to a footnote appears next to > any central office code which is duplicated in both 201 and 609 areas. Why? > Allow me to speculate: Because at one time New Jersey must have had only one > area code with no prefix duplications. 609 was added early on with the > knowledge that the state would outgrow 201 before DDD was widely implemented. > Even though the state now had two area codes, there were still no prefix > duplications and it was likely that 7-digit dialing applied statewide. (To my > knowledge, New Jersey *never* had 1 + 7 digit dialing for intra-NPA toll > calls.) Eventually, as the concept of area codes caught on, New Jerseyites > were required to dial 10 digits to reach people in the 'other' area of their > state. (This does not apply universally in NJ, however. There is some > code conservation with 7 digit calls across the border allowed.) Here is what I remember, from memory, about 201 and 609. Direct Distance Dialing came to Atlantic City in 1961. Prior to DDD, there were five central offices serving Atlantic City (ATlantic City 2,3,4,5, and 6) and one serving Brigantine (COlonial 6). All calls within these areas were made by dialing just the 5 digit number. LD calls were placed by the operator. (Two things- obviously at the time, there could be no duplication of numbers between the AT 6 and CO 6 exchanges; also at the time, the area served by AT 2 and AT 3; specifically, that portion of Atlantic City south of where U.S. 40 ends, as well as the cities of Ventnor, Margate, and Longport, was still developing; the only AT 3 numbers assigned were those of the form AT3-1nnn). When DDD came in 1961, and 7 digit dialing implemented, the AT 2 and 3 exchanges became 822 and 823, the AT 4, 5, and 6 exchanges became 344, 345, and 348, and the CO 6 exchange became 266. Now, several other things- 1. Although the area code instructions showed a national map, included the 201/609 split, we were told that no area code was required for any call within NJ; I guess this meant that 609 was being opened for future expansion. I think it was around 1963 that NJ Bell told us we would need to use the 201 area code for northern NJ. (And confirming the speculation in the original article, the stories about the pending 201/908 split mentioned that originally 201 was the area code for the entire state.) 2. I guess the SXS office was retained for local calls, so any toll call out of Atlantic City required us to dial a 1 before the number. Thus all calls to another area code had to be preceeded by a "1", and all calls within 609 not to Atlantic City, Brigantine, Pleasantville, Somers Point, or Ocean City had to be preceeded by a "1" (and then the 7 digits). This 1+ requirement for all toll calls was deleted a number of years later; I don't know exactly when because my family moved out of the Atlantic City area in 1964. 3. I don't know if the billing system was in place at the time DDD came, because whenever we made a toll call, an operator would first come on and ask what number we were calling from. I think this lasted about a year. I also remember as southern NJ was being cut over to DDD, there was a mention that dialing instructions for calls from certain border areas to Philadelphia had changed. I think from places like Camden, to call Philadelphia, all one had to do was dial 11 and then the Philadelphia 7 digit number. When DDD, they had to dial 1 (215) (or maybe just (215)) like the rest of us. The listing of central office and locality in NJ phone books is pretty old. I don't know though why they flag duplicate central office codes; it's not like we don't need an area code if the code is unique to 201 or 609. Stan Krieger Summit, NJ ...!att!attunix!smk
vern@zebra.uucp (10/06/89)
In article <telecom-v09i0426m07@vector.dallas.tx.us>, covert@covert.enet.dec. com (Greg Monti) writes: > I thought that, when Area Codes were 'invented' in 1946 (not 'implemented,' > just 'invented'), the system was as follows: > - States small enough to require only one area code got a zero as the center > digit, with the other digits depending on population density or urbanization > (higher numbers to more rural states). The most urban, New Jersey, got the > lowest number of this series, 201. DC got 202. > - States big enough to require more than one area code at the outset got all > codes with a 1 as the center digit. The outer digits were assigned in the > same general way as described above. New York got 212, the second and third > most populous cities got 213 and 312, other big cities got 214, 412, 215, > etc. My father was Dial Traffic Engineer here in Denver when DDD was first announced. He explained that areas codes were assigned on the basis of incoming long distance traffic to the area. The areas having the most traffic at the time were New York City ( 212 ) and Los Angeles ( 213 ) even though they were a continent apart. These numbers were selected because they were the easiest to dial on a rotary dial. I'm not sure where the break point was in deciding whether a center digit of zero was easier to dial than one with larger end digits and a one in the center. Obviously 202 was easier that 919. Maybe just add up the digits and you get a list with N1N and N0N's scrambled in the mid region? Vernon C. Hoxie {ncar,nbires,boulder,isis}!scicom!zebra!vern 3975 W. 29th Ave. voice: 303-477-1780 Denver, Colo., 80212 TB+ uucp: 303-455-2670