MD announces area code OVERLAYS
David Lesher
overlay area codes, not further splitting 301 (Metro DC) and 410
(Baltimore environs).
I'm as surprised as the next guy. When I was last in Balt. talking
to PSC folks, I heard that despite the obvious advantages of
overlays, public fear of them would likely mandate splits.
I don't have the article here, so it's not clear to me that 301 will
get a doppleganger NPA, and so will 410. I would think so, but
someone else has the impression the current boundary might be
ignored. (It's also a LATA boundry at least for the most part.)
Note that MD has clear delineation between local and toll; only
""free"" calls can be dialed 10D; toll calls must be 1+(aka 11D). We
already have that in place for dialing 202, 703, and 410, for
example. (Some 410 prefixes are local to me here --- yes, local
cross-LATA calling.)
--
A host is a host from coast to coast.................wb8foz@nrk.com
& no one will talk to a host that's close...........(v)301 56 LINUX
Unless the host (that isn't close).........................pob 1433
is busy, hung or dead........vr vr vr vr.................20915-1433
Tom Billone
>
>Mike Mills in Thursday's WashPost reported that MD will be going with
>overlay area codes, not further splitting 301 (Metro DC) and 410
>(Baltimore environs).
>
>I'm as surprised as the next guy. When I was last in Balt. talking
>to PSC folks, I heard that despite the obvious advantages of
>overlays, public fear of them would likely mandate splits.
>
>I don't have the article here, so it's not clear to me that 301 will
>get a doppleganger NPA, and so will 410. I would think so, but
>someone else has the impression the current boundary might be
>ignored. (It's also a LATA boundry at least for the most part.)
>
From the article in the Post there will be NO BOUNDARIES. I think the
idea is quite lame, particularly since new lines in a home or office will
have different Area Codes. Thus, if I wish to talk to my neighbor I will
have to dial 10 numbers (not clear if you need a "1" in front). And
business concerns trying to add additional numbers, not terminals, to a
hunt group may have some difficulty.
What advantages do you see as "obvious" other than those for Bell
Atlantic?
Tom Billone
Global Communications
Fairfax, Virginia
David Lesher
>From the article in the Post there will be NO BOUNDARIES. I think the
>idea is quite lame, particularly since new lines in a home or office will
>have different Area Codes. Thus, if I wish to talk to my neighbor I will
>have to dial 10 numbers (not clear if you need a "1" in front). And
>business concerns trying to add additional numbers, not terminals, to a
>hunt group may have some difficulty.
A) It is NOT obvious to me. I'm hard pressed to believe they will
NOT have different area codes for different LATA's, but I'll wait
and see.
B) You need to dial 10D now to reach local DC, VA numbers.
Intra_LATA LD is 11D. That's been the case for ?5 years or so.
C) Anyone adding lines to hunt groups can just get trunkage
without directory numbers. But I see NO evidence that they will
have trouble adding to existing ones, even with 'em. And I can
envision that few things are as easy to move as modem pools.
D) If you can't handle 10 digits, buy a memory dialer. Come on,
DTMF is on every line in MD.
>What advantages do you see as "obvious" other than those for Bell
>Atlantic?
Simple. Otherwise, you face repeated splitting of the area codes.
So either:
Bowie stays in 301 now. But in ?3 years, it get put in 987.
or
Bowie moves to 654 now. Then, it needs to move to 987 in
3 years.
This has happened in ?Chicago? just recently.
Further, there are SURE to be big fights over the arbitrary boundry
lines. Each successive one is harder to make.
And what advantage will Bell Awful gain from this, other than the
obvious avoidance of repeated boundry fights?