TELECOM Digest Thu, 19 May 94 14:57:00 CDT Volume 14 : Issue 239 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson What Are Baseworks and Display Construction Set Packages? (A. Hashmi) Directory Assistance From Cellular Companies (Lynne Gregg) Re: Nationwide Name and Address Service (Bud Bach) Re: Nationwide Name and Address Service (Andrew Laurence) Re: Searching For a Specific Telephone (Fran S. Menzel) Re: International Callback Services (Peter Leif Rasmussen) Re: Pac-Tel (PC) Communication Software (Richard Kashdan) Re: Call Display From New York (Tony Harminc) Re: 800 Number Billback (Jonathan Loo) Re: "Private" Message on CID Box (mwolf@marcie.wellesly.edu) Re: How Can I Ring Up Myself? (Joseph Herl) Information Needed on Netiquette (Rosemary Angela Mauro) Re: Annoyance Calls From Answering Machine (Jonathan Loo) Re: DID Loophole or I'm Screwed up? (Randy Gellens) Re: Need Info on R.L. Drake Co. (Bennett Z. Kobb) Re: Problems With Call Return (Steve Elias) Re: Caller ID Gets Me Jealous (Dave Niebuhr) Re: Cellular Phone Timers (Mike Roche) Re: Palestinian Country Code (Carl Moore) Re: Pac-Tel (PC) Communication Software (Robert J. Rhodes) History of Area Code Splits (Carl Moore) TELECOM Digest is an electronic journal devoted mostly but not exclusively to telecommunications topics. It is circulated anywhere there is email, in addition to various telecom forums on a variety of public service systems and networks including Compuserve and GEnie. It is also gatewayed to Usenet where it appears as the moderated newsgroup 'comp.dcom.telecom'. Subscriptions are available at no charge to qualified organizations and individual readers. Write and tell us how you qualify: * telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu * The Digest is edited, published and compilation-copyrighted by Patrick Townson of Skokie, Illinois USA. You can reach us by postal mail, fax or phone at: 9457-D Niles Center Road Skokie, IL USA 60076 Phone: 708-329-0571 Fax: 708-329-0572 ** Article submission address only: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu ** Our archives are located at lcs.mit.edu and are available by using anonymous ftp. The archives can also be accessed using our email information service. For a copy of a helpful file explaining how to use the information service, just ask. ************************************************************************* * TELECOM Digest is partially funded by a grant from the * * International Telecommunication Union (ITU) in Geneva, Switzerland * * under the aegis of its Telecom Information Exchange Services (TIES) * * project. Views expressed herein should not be construed as represent-* * ing views of the ITU. * ************************************************************************* Additionally, the Digest is funded by gifts from generous readers such as yourself who provide funding in amounts deemed appropriate. Your help is important and appreciated. All opinions expressed herein are deemed to be those of the author. Any organizations listed are for identification purposes only and messages should not be considered any official expression by the organization. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: hashmi@cnj.digex.net (Atiqullah Hashmi) Subject: What Are Baseworks and Display Construction Set Packages? Date: 19 May 1994 13:04:12 -0400 Organization: Express Access Online Communications, New Jersey, USA Hi netters, Could any kind soul describe what are these packages and what do they do: 1. Baseworks 2. Display Construction Set(DCS) Also if there is any book/material/online info for details on these things, kindly let me know. Thanks very much, Atiq ------------------------------ From: Lynne Gregg Subject: Directory Assistance From Cellular Companies Date: Thu, 19 May 94 09:13:00 PDT Henry Mensch wrote about GTE Mobilnet's "lame" Directory Assistance in the Bay Area. Many cellular operators are sourcing Directory Assistance service to alternative operator services outfits. Many of these firms lack access to LEC or RBOC on-line data (including most recent adds/moves/changes), thus accounting for such inaccuracies in their service. McCaw operations recognize this and rely on LEC and RBOC DA bureaus for Directory Services to provide the highest degree of accuracy and efficiency to its cellular subscribers. McCaw cellular units in the Southwest (including Metrocel in Dallas) recently added automatic call completion to enhance existing DA service. Now subscribers can enjoy the added convenience of call completion when calling for Directory Assistance. The automatic call completion is included as a part of Directory Assistance service and offered at no additional charge. McCaw is extending this service throughout its U.S. operations including those it operates under the Cellular One (tm) name. Regards, Lynne ------------------------------ From: bachww@ferret.cig.mot.com (Bud Bach) Subject: Re: Nationwide Name and Address Service Date: 19 May 1994 14:22:05 GMT Organization: Cellular Infrastructure Group, Motorola In article Blake.R.Patterson@att.com writes: > Ameritech offers Chicago-area reverse lookups (NPAs 312 and 708 only). > Call 796-9600 from 312+ or 708+ phones and pay $.35 for two lookups. > From outside those NPAs, call 312-796-9600; you just pay the toll. > This service uses human voice for prompts and synthetic speech (that I > find hard to understand) for the names and addresses. Remember, > Chicago-area lookups only. Note that if you ask the thing to repeat the same information several times a real live person comes on line. Bud bachww@cig.mot.com (Bud Bach) [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Ditto if you sit there and do nothing at all after it first answers; the asssumption then is you are calling from a rotary phone and the call is passed to a live operator. The Name and Address Service we have here has been around since the 1930's. Prior to the consoliated service at 796-9600, the same listings were obtained by dialing -2080. The old 'two-oh-eight-oh' service was manual; that number rang on the desk of the Chief Operator's clerk in each CO and they looked at an index card in a box on their desk. PAT] ------------------------------ From: laurence@netcom.com (Andrew Laurence) Subject: Re: Nationwide Name and Address Service Organization: NETCOM On-line Communication Services (408 261-4700 guest) Date: Thu, 19 May 1994 17:22:56 GMT Blake.R.Patterson@att.com writes: > DIAL: 900-933-3330, then use a touch-tone phone to enter ten-digit > numbers. The charge is still $1.00 a minute -- cheaper and as > accurate as the defunct Telename service George mentioned. I just tried it on my home number, which is listed and has been in service for more than a year. It told me it couldn't find it. Andrew Laurence Oakland, California USA laurence@netcom.com Pacific Daylight Time (GMT-7) [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: That's because, as Lynne Gregg points out in her note earlier in this issue, many of those outfits rely on old, obsolete listings rather than accessing the up-to-date listings of telco. They'd have to *pay* telco to do that; then there would be less profit in their operation. I guess they figure it is better to work with older, less expensive databases and be right part of the time rather than do the job right but make less profit. PAT] ------------------------------ From: f.s.menzel Date: Thu, 19 May 1994 07:33:31 -0400 Subject: Re: Re: Searching For a Specific Telephone Steve Cogorno wrote: >> For quite a while now I'am searching for a specific telephone probably >> manufactured by AT&T.Specific features: narrow receiver, the speech >> unit of the receiver is bent almost 90 degrees; the receiver is shaped >> like an L , wire phone, mostly seen in black colour.I suppose it most >> be a very common model in the US , because I saw in many different >> movies. > It sounds like you are referring to the MERLIN/System 25,75, etc Voice > Terminals. You will not be able to use these without a Control Unit, > which will cost more than $1500 in most cases. The phones themselves > range from $250-500 depending on the size. Steve: The controller is not required if you stick to the analog sets such such as the 7102, which deals with ordinary tip and ring. I don't know what price the resale market is getting, but $250-500 sounds high. Fran Menzel 908-957-5615 AT&T Global Communications Systems ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 19 May 94 09:16:55 JST From: plr@ichigo.os.nasu.toshiba.co.jp (Peter Leif Rasmussen) Subject: Re: International Callback Services I would like to comment on the callback FAQ posted here by Bruce Hahne. I read a version of that before and investigated various services and found that Globalcom 2000 looked very interesting. That is about a month ago. The representative I talked with, Scot Bundren was very quick to answer my questions about the services, until I had provided him with my credit card number! Then all questions have gone unanswered, for a period of now two weeks. The answers to questions before used to come within 24 hours. I also now notice that his email address has changed from before scb@netcom.com to now scottb@cats.ucsc.edu. What I want to say is that I fear this might be a scam. Peter Rasmussen, Japan ------------------------------ From: rkashdan@netcom.com (Richard Kashdan) Subject: Re: Pac-Tel (PC) Communication Software Organization: NETCOM On-line Communication Services (408 261-4700 guest) Date: Wed, 18 May 1994 05:59:50 GMT przebien@news.delphi.com (PRZEBIENDA@DELPHI.COM) writes: > We had a home grown telecommunication package that allowed us to send > alphanumeric messages to our PAC-TEL pagers. We are interested in > updating the softwaree. We are interested in reasonably priced > commercial software or in the protocol specs of the 800 number we > communicate with the old package. I have a Windows-based package called Alfie-Jr. that works pretty well. The publisher is Evtek Corporation 800-388-8499 and it was pretty cheap, I am pretty sure it was something like $39 or $49. Another one you might check out is the Borland Sidekick 2.0 (not Sidekick Plus, but version 2.0 of the regular Sidekick). This will send alphanumeric pager messages. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 19 May 94 14:45:02 EDT From: Tony Harminc Subject: Re: Call Display From New York I found out how my caller from JFK airport in New York placed that call to me in Toronto that showed 212 210-0000 on my Call Display. He dialed MCI's 800 number (he didn't say what it was), and keyed in his MCI card number and my phone number. So MCI seems, under some circumstances at least, to pass CNID to Bell Canada. This is perhaps not surprising, in light of the corporate relationship between the two. It still isn't clear who produced the apparently bogus NPA and number in the first place. How long will it take the regulators to disallow this sort of thing, I wonder. Tony Harminc ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 18 May 1994 17:33:36 -0400 From: Jonathan Subject: Re: 800 Number Billback Pat Townson wrote: > You are not being charged for the call to the 800 number. That part is > free to you the caller with the recipient paying for the carriage. You > are being charged for the return collect call the Information Provider > makes to you, which the AOS operator asked if you would accept the > charges for. Admittedly sometimes they do not bother to call back but > simply continue the conversation with you on the same connection, but > none the less the AOS operator at some point asked if you would accept > the charges for the call; when accepted, it then is like any other > collect call. They often don't call back; AT&T explained to me that they transfer your call to a 900 number; at least that is the case with recorded messages. Or is it? [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: I've heard this is the case also, that your call is forwarded to a 900 number. I presume they somehow have to force in the number from which you are calling so the billing can be done. Either way, it is a poor practice and in bad taste. PAT] ------------------------------ From: mwolf@marcie.wellesley.edu (MUR) Subject: Re: "Private" Message on CID Box Organization: WELLESLEY COLLEGE Date: Thu, 19 May 1994 11:59:24 GMT Another posting in this folder referred to "Anonymous Call Blocking", a service offered by the phone company in Texas. Is this one of the Fed's mandated services, which will be available everywhere soon, or is it just something offered at the discretion of individual phone companies? ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 19 May 1994 13:47:41 -0500 Subject: Re: How Can I Ring Up Myself? From: Joseph Herl Reply-To: jherl@uiuc.edu Many thanks for taking the time to respond to my question about how to call myself. Your response was detailed and absolutely correct. The ringback number 1-577-nnnn works here in Champaign. I think this will be a big time saver when we move next week. Joe Herl [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Ah, so it does work throughout all of Illinois Bell's territory. Mine is 1-573-nnnn. I hope other readers in northern Illinois find this useful. PAT] ------------------------------ From: st014532@oregon.uoregon.edu (Rosemary Angela Mauro) Subject: Information Needed on Netiquette Date: 19 May 1994 03:36:15 GMT Organization: University of Oregon, Eugene, Oregon Reply-To: st014532@oregon.uoregon.edu I am currently engaged in putting on a presentation for a telecommunications class at the U of Oregon. I need any information you may have regarding netiquette,nethics and conventional terms used on th intenet or email. Perhaps someone has an email address where I could write for information. Would appreciate any response. Thanks. [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Imagine that! Someone actually *asking* how to be polite and courteous on the net instead of being *told* by several dozen angry readers ... :) I suggest news.announce.newreaders is one good source for the information. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 19 May 1994 21:59:50 -0400 From: Jonathan Subject: Re: Annoyance Calls From Answering Machine Another telephone company service that can help is Call Trace, *57. Ask the Business Office about it. It might not be *57 in your area. By the way, Pat's suggestions sounded a little too draconian. The idea of "it is dialing correctly but some equipment in the central office is on the intermittant fritz (telco's problem, and less likely than the first two probabilities)": how often does this occur? It doesn't sound like a common problem, and if there is such a problem: what can be done to fix something that serious? [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: It isn't that common, and sort of difficult to find and fix. Let's say it is an older central office with a lot of mechanical equipment. One of the pieces of common equipment there -- used by all subscribers -- goes bad, gets a loose connection, etc. It used to be in the old stepping switch offices that sometimes a switch would get old and worn out and miss a 'step' here and there. Maybe the number the answering machine is *supposed* to call is just one digit off the number it actually gets connected to, and then it only happens when the answering machine is making a call and happens to get assigned the piece of faulty equipment in the CO. In other words, it happens all the time to whoever happens to select that particular piece of equipment in the central office, but it only happens that the answering machine gets that circuit once every five or ten calls, like any other typical user. I think I mentioned once that I long ago would call a certain number in the daytime and always get connected with no hassles, yet when calling the same number at midnight or one in the morning I'd always get stuck in the CO somewhere with the call going nowhere and never completing. Once I was able to get someone in night plant willing to look into the matter, it was found that the first trunk in a group of several to be offered to me was bad. In the daytime when traffic in the CO was heavy, no one ever got the first selected trunk over and over again. In the middle of the night I *always* got it. Some of those obscure little kinks in the CO take a Sherlock Holmes to root them out, report them and get them fixed. PAT] ------------------------------ From: RANDY@MPA15AB.mv-oc.Unisys.COM Date: 17 MAY 94 00:42:00 Subject: Re: DID Loophole or I'm Screwed up? > Per FCC Part 68 and TELCo tariffs, anything other than audible ring > and busy tone (with some exceptions) is "meaningful" -- and the call > must be supervised (answered). I thought it was OK for a PBX to issue an intercept without returning supervision. For example, "The extension you dialed does not exist. Please call xyx-xxyy for assistance." Do these messages have to be supervised? Randall Gellens randy@mv-oc.unisys.com Net**2 656-6350 (Please forward bounces to Mail Stop MV 237 rgellens@mcimail.com) ------------------------------ From: bkobb@newsignals.com (Bennett Z. Kobb) Subject: Re: Need Info on R.L. Drake Co. Organization: New Signals Research Date: Thu, 19 May 1994 11:30:30 GMT Their current address: RL Drake Co PO Box 3006 Miamisburg OH 45343 800 568 3795 Note that it's Miamisburg and not Miamisville. Have a nice forever, Bennett Kobb ------------------------------ From: Steve Elias Subject: Re: Problems With Call Return Date: Thu, 19 May 94 11:06:29 MST Hi Monty, IMHO, Call Return is a fine service and I am pleased with it so far. It is a good workaround to the California PUC wimp out on Caller ID. I've called back a bunch of wrong numbers to my answering machine so far. It's fun. Just because some people are too clueless or obnoxious or shy to use Call Return courteously does not mean the service should not be offered. There are some of us who are capable of using Call Return courteously and effectively! eli ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 16 May 94 07:26:34 EDT From: dwn@dwn.ccd.bnl.gov (Dave Niebuhr) Subject: Re: Caller ID Gets Me Jealous In TELECOM Digest V14 #228 dhayes@onramp.net (David Hayes) writes: > Personally, I believe that the phone companies are afraid > that so many people would select per-line blocking (rather than > per-call) that no one would want to pay for Caller ID service. Selecting per-line blocking to hide a phone number doesn't help. It doesn't prevent the number from being listed in the directory; all it does is slow the information gatherer down. Dave Niebuhr Internet: dwn@dwn.ccd.bnl.gov (preferred) niebuhr@bnl.gov / Bitnet: niebuhr@bnl Senior Technical Specialist, Scientific Computing Facility Brookhaven National Laboratory Upton, NY 11973 1+(516) 282-3093 FAX 1+(516) 282-7688 ------------------------------ From: mr@Tadpole.COM (Mike Roche) Subject: Re: Cellular Phone Timers Date: 19 May 1994 17:43:10 GMT Organization: Tadpole Technology, Inc. Austin, TX Reply-To: mr@Tadpole.COM > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: There is apparently, at present no way to > start or stop the timer(s) with supervision. I believe the timers are > wired through the SEND button and that is about it. Actually on my Motorola MicroTac UltraLite the timer starts when the phone is assigned a channel and stops a second or so after I push "END" ie. when the phone gives up the channel. My previous phone (an OKI) behaved the same. This yields an accurate "billed" time for completed chargable calls. It would be nice though to be able to tell the phone (FUNC x); "the last call was 'free' (incomplete, customer service etc) so subtract the last call time from the cumulative timer. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 19 May 94 14:14:29 EDT From: Carl Moore Subject: Re: Palestinian Country Code So you are saying that +972 7 includes Gaza, right? The zone.9 file currently doesn't have any reference to city code 7 under +972. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 19 May 1994 14:28:19 -0400 From: rrhodes@infi.net (Robert J. Rhodes) Subject: Pac-Tel (PC) Communication Software przebien@news.delphi.com (PRZEBIENDA@DELPHI.COM) wrote: > We had a home grown telecommunication package that allowed us to send > alphanumeric messages to our PAC-TEL pagers. We are interested in > updating the softwaree. We are interested in reasonably priced > commercial software or in the protocol specs of the 800 number we > communicate with the old package. There are some commercial packages available that will work with most paging company systems. I have used a package called PC Page, made by Metriplex, Inc. Their phone number is (617) 494-9393. It is a DOS based product that works well. We also are using some software provided by our local paging vendor (Mobil Media)called MobilComm Messaging Software. I don't know how you would go about acquiring it. You could try contacting Mobil Media. Their number is (804) 490-7788. This is a Windows based package and works with 800 service. It was written by a company called Desktop Paging Software, Inc. I don't have the phone number for them. Mobil Media also has a package that is DOS based called SNAP Page. It is similar to the PC Page product. Robert J. Rhodes rrhodes@infi.net ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 19 May 94 14:04:25 EDT From: Carl Moore Subject: History of Area Code Splits New stuff added in history file, which I note has been changed back to history.of.area.splits; this is accounting for the message from Gregory P. Monti, and not yet for that from Alan Varney. This is for these areas: 217,309,618,815 Illinois 304 West Virginia add full cutover note for Lincoln Telephone portion of 402 Nebraska Ohio (all areas: 216,419,513,614) 315,518,607 New York Wisconsin (all areas: 414,608,715) 817 Texas (note that Fort Worth and vicinity changed earlier). Other comments: 408,805 should have been included in changes for California? How do you arrive at 1+10D for 610 in Pennsylvania? It is still part of 215, which along with the rest of Pa. has 7D noted instead. What about area 914 in New York? I was surprised by the note about West Virginia going to 7D for long distance within it. There is some local service from it to other area codes, at least into Maryland; I am most familiar with the local calls between Cumberland, MD and Ridgely, W.Va. In 1991 I wrote a note to the Digest that 707-xxxx from a Ridgely pay phone did indeed refer to the 301-707 prefix in Cumberland. TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Although Carl sent the latest version of the "History of Area Code Splits" file to me separately to be included in the Telecom Archives when I do the next update there, it has been quite awhile since it was itself published in the Digest, and it is a file I am asked about frequently. So, to conclude this issue, here is the 'history.of.area.splits' file, updated to May 18. My thanks to Carl for his continued hard work in keeping this Archives file up to date and comprehensive. Date: Wed, 18 May 94 14:07:36 EDT From: cmoore@ARL.MIL Subject: history.of.area.splits Last updated: 18 May 1994 by Carl Moore Generalizing prefixes from NNX to NXX (i.e., allowing N0X/N1X) is an alternative to splitting an area which has had only NNX up to this point. When an area has NXX (not NNX) prefixes, its long distance dialing instructions usually are: 7D or 1 + NPA + 7D within area (can no longer use 1 + 7D); 1 + NPA + 7D to other areas (can no longer use NPA + 7D); for 0+ calls, try 0 + NPA + 7D (some 0 + 7D would require timeout). In other words, the leading 1 (or 0) means that what follows is an area code. These instructions can, without further revision, accommodate area codes of form NXX, not just of form N0X/N1X, and thus could be universal by the time area codes must generalize to NXX. The deadline for switches to be able to handle NXX area codes is 1 January 1995 (had been 1 July 1995). It was thought that the first batch of NNX area codes would be of NN0 form, so that some areas could keep 1 + 7D for intra-NPA long distance by disallowing prefixes of NN0 form; I did not know if this would have been affected by use of 52x codes (x not 0) for Mexico. But on 22 July 1993, it was announced that area 205, covering all of Alabama, would split in 1995 to form 334. It is unclear how generalizing area codes to NXX would affect the policy of not using N0X/N1X prefixes until NNX starts running short. I found an exception to the above dialing instructions in February 1992 for 215-267 (Denver) and 215-484 (Adamstown) in Pennsylvania. These exchanges, served by Denver & Ephrata Telephone & Telegraph (also serving a part of the 717 area), were still using the old instructions (1 + 7D and 0 + 7D within area code), even though this necessitated timeout resolution for some calls. I learned (on 2 September 1993) that they would move to 717 (Denver going to 717-336 because of 717-267 being in use at Chambersburg). On 25 September 1993, I noticed that (during permissive dialing) all long distance from there was to be dialed as 1+NPA+7D (with 0+NPA+7D for all 0+), with "1 717" apparently being dropped after the full cutover to 717. The suggestion (at least from Bellcore) has been seen that ideally, all calls should be makeable as 1+NPA+7D (this does not necessarily forbid shorter forms). These areas prepared for N0X/N1X prefixes before it became necessary to prepare for NNX area codes: 213 California, July 1973 (7D on all calls within it) (later 213/818, now 213/310/818, to become 213/310/818/562) (but for some time, this area continued to publish 0+7D instruction for within-NPA 0+ calls) 212 New York, some days after 24 Nov 1980 (7D on all calls within it) (later 212/718, now 212/917/718) 312 Illinois, Oct 1982--but got 1st N0X/N1X spring 1983? (7D on all calls within it) (now 312/708, to become 312/708/630) 201 New Jersey (7D on all calls within it; also applies to 609) (now 201/908) 214 Texas, 1986 or 1987 (by July 1987) (1+NPA+7D on all toll calls; also applies to 817, at least in Fort Worth area) (now 214/903) 301/202/703 Maryland/DC/Virginia, 1987, due to DC area growth (1+NPA+7D on all toll calls) (301 now 301/410) 415 California, Feb 1989? (7D on all calls within it) (now 415/510) 404 Georgia, Oct 1989? (1+NPA+7D on all toll calls; also applies to 912) (now 404/706) 919 North Carolina, 2 Mar 1990 (1+NPA+7D on all toll calls; also applies to 704) (now 919/910) 416 Ontario, 3 Mar 1990 (1+NPA+7D on all toll calls) (now 416/905) 602 Arizona, 1 July 1990 (1+NPA+7D on all toll calls) (to become 602/520) 313 Michigan, 1990? (1+NPA+7D on all toll calls) (now 313/810) 512 Texas, 9 Sept 1990 (1+NPA+7D on all toll calls) (now 512/210) 205 Alabama, Dec 1990 (1+NPA+7D on all toll calls) (to become 205/334) 215 Pennsylvania, 20 May 1991 (7D on all calls within it; exception noted above for 2 prefixes later moving to 717, but the new instructions also applied to: 717-354,355 New Holland 717-656,661 Leola 717-768 Intercourse) (now 215/610) 206 Washington, 12 Jan 1992 (1+NPA+7D on all toll calls) (to become 206/360) 713 Texas, 8 Mar 1992 (permissive dialing 8 Dec 1991) (1+NPA+7D on all toll calls) (to become 713/281) 714 California, 1992? (7D on all calls within it) (now 714/909) 503 Oregon, 10 July 1993 (1+NPA+7D on all toll calls) No note about N0X/N1X prefixes, but instructions are being changed to prepare for NNX area codes: 305,407,813,904 Florida, 7 Mar 1992 (at least for 813) (1+NPA+7D on all toll calls) 207 Maine; 603 New Hampshire (17 July 1993); 1993-1994 (This was to include all New England areas except Connecticut, but this list now has separate entries for Massachusetts, Vermont, and Rhode Island.) (Earlier, for 413 going to 7D on all calls within area code: Feb- June 1993; full cutover 21 Sept 1993; 1+NPA+7D for local calls to another area code permissive 1 Mar to 8 Apr 1993.) (7D on all calls within area code; optional for New Hampshire, with per-line option to block 7D and require 1+NPA+7D for toll within area code) 413,508,617 Massachusetts (order by public utility commission in Oct 1993; mandatory, in 413, 1 June 1994; eastern Massachusetts to follow later in 1994) (1+NPA+7D on all toll calls) 802 Vermont, permissive 18 Feb 1994, mandatory 18 May 1994 (1+NPA+7D on all toll calls) 401 Rhode Island, announced Jan 1994 (but when to be implemented?) (1+NPA+7D on all toll calls) 303,719 Colorado (27 Feb 1994); 612,507,218 Minnesota (late 1994); 319,515,712 Iowa; 701 North Dakota (19 June 1994, full cutover 3 Oct 1994; 605 South Dakota; 308,402 Nebraska (full cutover late 1994 for Lincoln Telephone area); 505 New Mexico (14 Feb 1994, full cutover 19 Jun 1994); 801 Utah; 307 Wyoming; 406 Montana; 208 Idaho; 509 Washington (15 May 1994, full cutover 17 Sept 1994); 1993-1994 (U.S. West areas except Arizona, Oregon, 206 in Washington) (1+NPA+7D on all toll calls) 219,317,812 Indiana, c. Aug 1993 (full cutover 1 Dec 1993) (1+NPA+7D on all toll calls) 615 Tennessee, 1 July 1993(?) (full cutover 1 Sept 1993) (1+NPA+7D on all toll calls) 901 Tennessee, Sept 1993? (1+NPA+7D on all toll calls) 803 South Carolina, Sept 1993? (1+NPA+7D on all toll calls) 209,408,619,707,805,916 California; Pacific Bell, by 11 Oct 1993 (These are the California area codes not cited above, as of Feb 1993, as preparing for N0X/N1X prefixes; but some of these, in whole or in part, already have the new instructions.) (GTE areas: 0+NPA+7D for 0+ within own area code permissive 11 Oct 1993, fully cut over 10 Oct 1994; direct-dial not affected.) (7D on all calls within area code) 412,717,814 Pennsylvania, for 717 1 Nov 1993 (full cutover 31 July 1994), for 814 8 Nov 1993 (full cutover 1 Aug 1994); announced Sept 1993 (7D on all calls within area code) 716 New York, 5 Dec 1993 (at least for Rochester Telephone; is this permissive or mandatory date?) (7D on all calls within it) 601 Mississippi, Dec 1993 (1+NPA+7D on all toll calls) 302 Delaware, 1 Apr 1994 (full cutover 7 Jan 1995) (1+NPA+7D on all toll calls) 519,613,705,807 Ontario; 418,514,819 Quebec; 204 Manitoba; 306 Saskatchewan; 403 Alberta (and Yukon and NW Territories); 506 New Brunswick; 604 British Columbia; 709 Newfoundland (and Labrador); 902 Nova Scotia and Prince Edward Island; 4 Sept 1994 (all of Canada except 416 and 905 in Ontario) (1+NPA+7D on all toll calls) 315,516,518,607 New York, 1994? (7D on all calls within area code) 217,309,618,815 Illinois, 1994? (7D on all calls within area code) 304 West Virginia, 1994? (7D on all calls within it) 216,419,513,614 Ohio, 1994? (full cutover 1 Jan 1995) (1+NPA+7D on all toll calls) 414,608,715 Wisconsin, 1994? (1+NPA+7D on all toll calls) 817 Texas, 1994? (already in use in & near Fort Worth) (1+NPA+7D on all toll calls) Areacode splits: If no date appears, the split may not have been announced publicly due to lack of direct-dial facility at the time, or may never have occurred. Early splits can only be guessed at with the following guidelines: If an areacode is of form N1X, it is in a state or province with more than 1 areacode. (The reverse, if it was ever true, is now obsolete.) If an areacode is in a state or province with only 1 areacode, it is of form N0X. (The reverse, if it was ever true, is now obsolete.) what?/209 California what?/707 California what?/805 California 305/813 Florida what?/309 Illinois 502/606 Kentucky 504/318 Louisiana 612/507 Minnesota 402/308 Nebraska what?/607 New York 704/919 North Carolina 405/918 Oklahoma 901/615 Tennessee what?/806 Texas 206/509 Washington what?/608 Wisconsin 416/519 Ontario, 1953 404/912 Georgia, 1953 or 1954 December 1991 Greater Atlanta call guide, in discussing 404/706 split, said "It's been 38 years since Georgia added an Area Code." 613/705 Ontario, 1957 (did 705 also take part of the then 416?) 201/609 New Jersey, late 1950s 415/408 California, 1960 616/906 Michigan, sometime after Nov 1960 what?/807 Ontario, 1962 (either an area which had no area code, or 705 split) 305/904 Florida, July 1965 703/804 Virginia, 24 June 1973 at 2:01 AM 714/619 California, Nov 1982 713/409 Texas, Mar 1983 (full cutover 90 days later) 213/818 California, Jan 1984 212/718 New York, 2 Sept 1984 (full cutover 31 Dec 1984) Brooklyn, Queens, Staten Island became 718; Manhattan & Bronx stayed in 212; Bronx switched from 212 to 718, 1 July 1992 (full cutover 15 May 1993; but until then, calls from Bronx to Brooklyn/ Queens/Staten Island must still be dialed 1+718+7D, and effective 25 Sept 1993 must be dialed 7D) 303/719 Colorado, 5 Mar 1988 305/407 Florida, 16 Apr 1988 617/508 Massachusetts, 16 July 1988 312/708 Illinois, Nov 1989 (full cutover 9 Feb 1990) 202 District of Columbia & vicinity, 1 Oct 1990 This behaved somewhat like a split despite no new area code. 202 area code, previously useable for all but the outermost Maryland and Virginia suburbs, was restricted to DC proper. (Use 301 or 703, as the case may be, to reach the suburbs.) As a result, government offices (now including the Pentagon) using zipcodes starting with 200,202,203,204,205 and located in Md. or Va. can no longer be listed in area 202. Prefixes in the Pentagon, which is in Virginia, were previously in area 202 (not 703), and in 1990 were moved to area 703. (Local calls across area code border changed from 7D to NPA+7D.) 214/903 Texas, 4 Nov 1990 (full cutover 4 May 1991) 201/908 New Jersey, 1 Jan 1991 (full cutover 8 June 1991) 415/510 California, 2 Sept 1991 (full cutover 27 Jan 1992) 301/410 Maryland, 1 Nov 1991 (full cutover 1 Nov 1992) 213/310 California, 2 Nov 1991 (full cutover 16 May 1992; was to be 2 May 1992, but was postponed indefinitely because of riots just before then) (all GTE plus some PacBell went into 310) 212/718/917 New York, 1 Jan 1992 (917, to be overlaid on 212 & 718, is to be used for cellular & pagers) 404/706 Georgia, 3 May 1992 (full cutover 3 Aug 1992) 512/210 Texas, 1 Nov 1992 (full cutover 1 May 1993) 714/909 California, 14 Nov 1992 (full cutover 14 Aug 1993) (Riverside and San Bernardino counties go into 909; Orange County remains in 714) 416/905 Ontario, 4 Oct 1993 (full cutover 25 Mar 1994, postponed from 10 Jan 1994) 919/910 North Carolina, 14 Nov 1993 (full cutover 13 Feb 1994) 313/810 Michigan, 1 Dec 1993 (full cutover 10 Aug 1994) 215/610 Pennsylvania, 8 Jan 1994 (full cutover 7 Jan 1995) 205/334 Alabama, 15 Jan 1995 (full cutover 13 Mar 1995) (the first NNX area code to be announced, on 22 July 1993) 206/360 Washington, 15 Jan 1995 (full cutover 9 July 1995) 602/520 Arizona, 19 Mar 1995 (full cutover 23 July 1995) (announced 29 Nov 1993) 713/281 Texas, 1995 (nature of the split not yet decided) 213/310/818/562 California, Mar 1995 or Mar 1996 (cellular/pager overlay) 708/630 Illinois, 1st quarter 1995 Area codes 706,903,905 had been used, at least in the U.S., for calling parts of Mexico. (These codes were later announced for Georgia, Texas, and Ontario respectively.) 706 and 905 were discontinued 1 Feb 1991 for calls to Mexico (which was and still is reachable in country code 52); I have no such date available for 903. ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V14 #239 ******************************