goudreau@dg-rtp.dg.com (Bob Goudreau) (07/20/89)
[Charles Buckley (ceb@csli.stanford.edu) writes: ] >As far as the Bell study is concerned, I wasn't around at the time, >but I'm sure that it had the single-digit American parochialism >built-in. Who's to say how this influenced the results? From what I understand, the Bell study was the reason that the current 7-digit system was set up in the first place. There was no American parochialism before then, because there was no standard telephone number length or format in use at the time; there was a only mish-mash of different setups. From what I remember reading, the study tested people to discover the longest number-length that could be easily remembered, and the best format for such numbers. The optimal answer they came up with was 7 digits, arranged in a 3-4 split. (Correct me if I'm wrong, you other Telecom readers who remember this better.) >They [Germany] will never run out of numbers (unlike the US). Once NXX area codes are implemented in a few years, the NANP will have on the order of 5 * 10^9 possible numbers. I hope never to have to see the day when North America has enough people to consume all those numbers! For all practical purposes, NXX-NXX-XXXX means that we'll never run out of numbers. And by the time that we need >10 distinctly addressable communications channels per person, do you think we'll still be using telephone numbers directly? >The inappropriate rigidity of the American 7-digit system is well >demonstrated on one extreme by the relatively traumatic phenomenon of >area code splitting in big cities, ... I don't see how you can use area code splitting as an example that proves the superiority of variable-length systems over fixed-length ones. It seems to me that it would be just as annoying to have my number changed from (say) 369.56.78 to 73.69.56.78 as it would be to have my number changed from (say) 617-369-5678 to 508-369-5678. You still have to get all the stationery reprinted, etc. In fact, I could argue that an area code split can be *less* traumatic overall. Consider that when Paris went to 8 digits, *everybody* in Paris had their number changed. Now consider that when New York City split 718 off from 212, *only* the people consigned to the new code had their numbers changed. The denizens of Manhattan and the Bronx (which continue to be 212) weren't inconvenienced at all. Fixed-length numbers have other advantages as well. The well-known number format is an easily-memorized template, and makes it extremely easy to notice dropped digits and such, since the result is a malformed number. Also, they can allow telco switching equipment to be used more efficiently because, once the first few digits have been entered, the length of the rest of the number can generally be calculated (excepting international calls, of course!). This means that the switching equipment doesn't have to waste time by constantly asking itself "is he done dialing?" after each and every digit is sent; it can just wait until all the digits are in. Bob Goudreau +1 919 248 6231 Data General Corporation ...!mcnc!rti!xyzzy!goudreau 62 Alexander Drive goudreau@dg-rtp.dg.com Research Triangle Park, NC 27709, USA
miket@brspyr1.brs.com (Mike Trout) (07/26/89)
In article <telecom-v09i0249m01@vector.dallas.tx.us>, goudreau@dg-rtp.dg.com (Bob Goudreau) writes: > From what I understand, the Bell study was the reason that the current > 7-digit system was set up in the first place. There was no American > parochialism before then, because there was no standard telephone > number length or format in use at the time; there was a only mish-mash > of different setups. From what I remember reading, the study tested > people to discover the longest number-length that could be easily > remembered, and the best format for such numbers. The optimal answer > they came up with was 7 digits, arranged in a 3-4 split. (Correct > me if I'm wrong, you other Telecom readers who remember this better.) The above got me thinking about the history of the USA telephone numbering system. When was the above study done? When were all numbers standardized at seven digits? What other systems were used before that? What were the last non-seven-digit systems? A little personal experience: My family has owned a camp in the Adirondack Mountains of upstate New York since 1954. When we bought the camp, its phone number there was "Eagle Bay 3268." Not EB2-3268 or anything like that; just Eagle Bay 3268. You could dial locally just by using the last four digits, but any other calls required an operator. At the time I lived in Tulsa, and a long-distance call to our camp also required an operator. Our Tulsa number was TE8-7438 for as far back as I could remember, way before the 918 Area Code was established, so it was always obvious that the New York number was "weird". The strangest thing was that the New York number lasted a LONG time--even well AFTER the 315 Area Code was created. I'm not sure of the exact date when it finally went to a seven-digit number, but it couldn't have been before the late 1960s and may have not been until the mid-1970s. After the 315 Area Code had been established, making a call from Tulsa to our camp became a real adventure. My approximate remembrance (let's say this is about 1968): Me in Tulsa: I'd like to make a long-distance call to upstate New York, in Area Code 315. Operator: You can dial that directly, you know. What's the number there, please? T: Eagle Bay 3268. That's why I can't dial directly. O: I'm sorry, I didn't understand you. What was that local number again? T: Eagle Bay 3268. O: Letter prefixes were replaced by numbers some time ago. What's the complete number you wish to reach? T: Eagle Bay 3268. That's the entire number. It's a tiny rural community, and hasn't switched to seven digits yet. O: You don't understand me. I need the full number you are trying to reach. T: Eagle Bay 3268. Eagle Bay is the name of the telephone exchange there. All the numbers in the exchange have only four digits. O: There haven't been numbers like that for many years. You must have a VERY old directory or something. T: Trust me. I made this same call just a few weeks ago. O: That's impossible. T: I'm not sure how they do it, but the other operators I've used dial the Eagle Bay operator, who then connects me with 3268. There must be a way for you to do that. O: Of course not. I could understand if you were trying to call Africa or someplace like that, but you're telling me this number is in New York. T: Yup. About 50 miles north of Utica. In Area Code 315. O: I'm sorry, but what you're asking we just can't do. We don't have the ability to make such a call, and we never have. I'm sure you must be mistaken about something. [hang up, repeat procedure with three or four different operators, until:] O: OH, YES!!! EAGLE BAY!!! I handled a call to there last month! Strangest set-up I've ever seen. I had no idea such a place existed. We were talking about it the other day, and somebody said it was the last place in the country that didn't have normal numbers. Where in the world is it, anyway? Here, I'll connect you with the Eagle Bay operator... T: Thanks...(whew!) When the connection was finally made, conversations sounded like low-power transmissions from Pluto. On many occasions, static and interference were so bad that I had to hang up and start with Step 1 again. Today, the Eagle Bay exchange is no more, the four-digit numbers are all different, and the whole area is 357-XXXX. Unfortunately, since Continental Telephone is in charge, conversations now sound like low-power transmissions from Neptune. Anybody have similar war stories? I'm interested in finding out more about historical telephone aberrations. Any explanation for the Bay of Eagle fiasco? -- NSA food: Iran sells Nicaraguan drugs to White House through CIA, SOD & NRO. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~Michael Trout (miket@brspyr1)~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ BRS Information Technologies, 1200 Rt. 7, Latham, N.Y. 12110 (518) 783-1161 "God forbid we should ever be 20 years without...a rebellion." Thomas Jefferson [Moderator's Note: I'll have more examples of this in the Digest in the next day or two. PT]