Toll-Free 855 Coming Soon, to Join Toll-Free 800, 888, 877, 866 Area Codes [telecom]
Mark J. Cuccia
Newsletter, uploading to the NANPA website:
http://www.nanpa.com/pdf/newsletters/NANPA_1Q10.pdf
On page 5 of the six-page newsletter, in the "News Brief" section,
there is the following blurb (fourth paragraph):
"DSMI, the FCC's designated Toll Free Administrator, has notified
the FCC of the projected exhaust of current toll free numbers and
requested approval to release the 855 NPA code. Timeframe for
availability of 855 numbers is no later than 4Q-2011."
SO... it looks like after over ten years now, there could be some
new toll-free numbers of the 855-nxx-xxxx format!
The original AT&T/Bell System Inward-WATS toll-free 800 was
introduced in the US over the 1966/67 time-frame. Alabama was the
first state with intra-state "only" 800 service in 1966, and then
during Spring 1967, inter-state nationwide (48-states/DC only) 800
toll-free service was introduced. I don't know when the other 47
states began their own intra-state "only" 800 service though.
800 Toll-Free (Inward-WATS) was introduced in Canada during 1969/70.
There were dedicated 800-NNX codes for intra-Canada use, which had
bands that were single-province to multi-provide to Canada-wide.
However, some provinces paralleled the US practice of using 800-NN2
codes for intra-province "only" 800 numbers, just like intra-state
"only" 800 service in the US also used the 800-NN2 codes.
But Canada's 800 and the US' 800 toll-free during the 1970s and early
1980s were NOT "interconnected". If a Canadian customer wanted a
toll-free 800 number to be dialable from the US, they had to get a
distinct "US-based" 800 number that would forward to Canada; and
vice-versa, if a US customer wanted a toll-free 800 number to be
dialable from Canada, they had to get a distinct "Canadian-based"
800 number that would forward to the US.
And until the early 1980s, inter-state 800 in the US (and until the
mid/late 1980s, multi-province/Canada-wide 800 in Canada) had
geographic based distinct 800-NNX codes for terminating at specific
destination NPAs! And the line-numbers were assigned such that
specific thousands, and sometimes even hundreds, indicated the
particular purchased "bands" that were able to call that toll-free
800 number from various parts of the US (or Canada for Canadian-based
800).
Between 1977 and 1979, Hawaii, Puerto Rico, Alaska, and the US Virgin
Islands were added to toll-free 800 INWATS, where they could be
purchased as originating locations for US-based 800 numbers, and they
also could have intra-state/territory 800, as well as 800 numbers
which could be called from the (mainland) US...
800-544 for inter-state toll-free terminating in 907 Alaska
800-367 for inter-state toll-free terminating in 808 Hawaii
800-468 for mainland US toll-free destined for PR part of
(at the time) 809
800-524 for mainland US toll-free destined for (US)VI part of
(at time) 809
Around 1982, AT&T-LL introduced a toll-free number database and used
more CCIS signaling to where US-based 800 could be managed where
there was no longer any geography associated with such (US) 800-NNX-xxxx
based numbers. This was geographic portability, but all customers
were those of AT&T-LL and/or the local telco (at the time all ILECs).
Telecom-Canada introduced such geographic portability within Canada,
and among the Canadian ILECs/etc. in the mid-to-late 1980s, although
AT&T and Telecom-Canada had already begun a US/Canada co-operative
use of their own legacy 800-NNX codes, i.e., 800-465 had traditionally
been associated with 807/ON (western Ontario) as a destination for
Canadian originated 800 calls, but Bell Canada/Telecom-Canada and
AT&T-LL were now able to work it out such that 800-465-4329 was
assigned to Holiday Inns in the US (call 1-800-HOLIDAY). The 800-465-4329
number was still not dialable from Canada at this time, but it would
be flagged by Bell Canada as not assignable, since it was given up
for AT&T-LL to assign to a US customer for (still at this time)
US (only) use.
In 1984, AT&T-LL and Telecom-Canada finally began "cross-border"
toll-free 800 services, where the same 800 number could be used for
customers in either country who wanted originating calling capability
from all or part of both countries.
During 1985/86, the US Federal Government, Bellcore, and the
telcos/IXCs, as part of the evolving post-divestiture environment,
came to an agreement that 800 toll-free service would eventually
become competitive, AND fully portable among carriers. Competitive
toll-free would begin at this time, but full "carrier portability"
would not be required immediately. Instead, Bellcore-NANPA would
assign previously unassigned 800-NXX codes to individual new-entrant
IXCs (and LECs) who requested them. Some 181 legacy 800-NNX codes for
the US would be retained by AT&T-LL, and some 18 or 19 legacy 800-NNX
codes for Canada would continue to be associated with "Telecom-Canada".
Bellcore would continue to assign or administer the line-numbers on
800-555 (directory and other special functions) and 800-855 (for
TDD/TTY telco-provided services). The 181 AT&T-LL 800-NNX codes, the
18 (later 19) Telecom-Canada 800-NNX codes, and the two which Bellcore
maintained (800-555, 800-855) were from the "old" pre-divestiture
AT&T/Telecom-Canada "pool" for 800 inward-WATS for both the US and
Canada, intra- and inter- state/province services, a total of just
over 200 800-NNX codes out of the now 792 total 800-NXX code "pool".
It was understood that no carrier would actually "own" each assigned
800-NXX code, but that they would have line-number assignment use of
them for use on their own networks. Within each network/carrier/800-NXX
code, there would be _geographic_ portability, but not necessarily
_carrier_ portability ... at least not at this time.
Some new-entrant competitive IXCs wanted the US Federal Government to
order AT&T-LL to abandon its 800 database routing service, turning it
over to either government management, or to BOC/LEC management, where
it could immediately become "carrier competitive", on an "as is now"
basis. But the federal courts rejected this, saying that the LECs
would ultimately establish their _OWN_ databases in each LATA/etc.,
along with emerging SS7 signaling technology to replace pre-divestiture
CCIS (and earlier MF/SF) signaling.
It was eventually decided that full carrier portability with BOC/LEC
databases and SS7 local/intra-LATA signaling capability would be in
place effective Spring 1992. However, a few months prior to that date,
the legacy telcos and the FCC decided that things were still a bit
premature and thus postponed the full carrier portability using BOC/LEC
databases and intra-LATA/local SS7 technology for another year, May 1993.
Things were most certainly fast-tracked now. Lockheed-Martin was chosen
as the NASC (Number Assignment Service Center) for fully portable
800-NXX-xxxx ten-digit number assignment. Bellcore-NANPA would no longer
need to (temporarily) assign or "associate" individual 800-NXX codes to
specific service providers (both LECs and IXCs).
The 800-250 code was reserved (at least the 1,500 line-numbers -0000
thru -1499 on 800-250) for carrier "testing" purposes in a fully
competitive-portable environment. Each carrier would be assigned one
or more individual 800-250-xxxx numbers, or blocks of consecutive
800-250-xxxx numbers (with the restriction to the range of 0000 to 1499)
so that one could dial a specific assigned number and see if they
could reach the terminating assigned carrier's verification recording
for testing. The use of 8yy-250-0000 thru -1499 has been retained as
new 8yy toll-free area codes has come about, usually with the same
assignments of line-numbers/ranges to the same service providers.
Canada was not yet going to join-in with fully carrier-portable 800
service. There was now SOME degree of competition in Canada among IXCs
(Unitel-later-AT&T-Canada-now-Allstream was the first real competitive
IXC, for example), and they provided competitive 800 service on their
own "dedicated" 800-NXX codes, similar to the way US-based service
providers were doing so from 1986 through Spring 1993.
But Canada decided that they would "join-in" with the US fully portable
800 environment, to become effective as of Spring 1994.
But the pool of 800-NXX codes was running out of codes even in a fully
portable environment! Bellcore-NANPA, LM's NASC, and the industry
agreed that 800-555 would be opened up for portable "regular" 800
numbers (with existing 800-555-1212 and other special previously
assigned 800-555-xxxx numbers "grandfathered), and also opened up seven
of the eight 800-N11 codes for assignment to regular line-numbers.
Since 800 has to be dialed on a full ten-digit basis, there "should"
be "no" confusion with existing three-digit N11 special local service
codes. 800-911 is NOT assigned AT ALL, but the others, 800-211 thru
800-811 are assigned.
800-855 was/is also now portable among carriers, i.e., the –xxxx
line-numbers are part of the database, but assignment is still
restricted to telco-provided TTY/TDD services for the hearing impaired
using text/teletype-based phones.
Thus, the 800-NXX pool was now increased to 799 possible codes (out of
eight hundred possible 800-NXX codes) altogether.
But this was still not going to be enough for the immediate future. It
was suggested by some telco industry members in 1994/95 to open up the
two-hundred 800-0xx/1xx codes, since toll-free 800 has to be dialed on
a full ten-digit basis, but this was going to be very problematic with
all kinds of customer-premises equipment (toll-restrictors, PBXes, etc)
and telco network switches, those which were "hard-wired/coded" to
reject customer dialing of 0XX/1XX codes in the office-code part of a
ten-digit number. It was also thought that there might be way too many
misdials of customers forgetting to first dial (1)-800, since ten-digit
dialing for ALL calls was NOT yet as commonplace. When ten-digit local
dialing is completely in place US/Canada-wide, then NPA+0XX/1XX codes
MIGHT become available in all area codes, but not in the mid-1990s and
still not yet today.
It was announced in Spring 1995 (I remember that I first heard about it
on one of the late Paul Harvey's ABC Radio newscasts) that in Spring 1996,
there would be additional toll-free numbers with '888' as the new toll-free
area code. (Today, I would read about such things on NANPA's website,
or the ATIS website, or Telcordia-TRA's website, etc., but back in 1995,
even though the Internet was now "established" for public/commercial use,
it was still relatively "new" as such, thus "regular" media such as
regular radio or TV news services was how I first heard about such things!
Paul Harvey was also where I first heard that southeast Texas was having
its 713/409 area code split of early 1983!)
So, 888 was added in Spring 1996. You'd think that this would allow
uninterrupted or such assignment of new toll-free numbers for at least
10-20 years! Afterall, 800 was first introduced in 1966/67, and it wasn't
until 30 years later, Spring 1996, when 888 was implemented. But oh, no,
there was all kinds of competitive/regulatory feuding and such, as to
whether or not a company with an 800 number had a right to have the
seven-digit part duplicated under 888, etc. The FCC was constantly
involved with toll-free regulatory issues and such at that time. And it
looked like 888 was going to exhaust rather early. The industry implemented
special/toll-free area code 877 for further toll numbers in Spring 1998.
In both 888 and 877 (and future 866, etc), the 250-xxxx line-numbers for
testing purposes as mentioned above, were duplicated for testing under
these new toll-free special area codes.
The telco industry also determined that the assignment of codes for
future toll-free (as needed) would be 877, 866, 855, 844, 833, 822.
And then other 88x codes would be assigned (888 already having been
assigned), but I don't know the "order" of implementation though (889
then 887, 886, ..., 881, 880? Or 880, 881, ..., 887, 889?).
As 2000 was approaching, it looked like 877 was "filling up fast",
and the telco industry and FCC decided that in Spring 2000, _BOTH_ 866
_AND_ 855 would be simultaneously implemented. But others in the telco
industry thought that this was "going too fast". There was a moratorium
placed, and it was decided that LATE Spring 2000 would have 866, and
then a month later 855, implemented. But even this was postponed.
866 was implemented in November 2000, with 855 to be implemented
"when needed at some future TO BE DETERMINED date".
BTW, DSMI is an acronym mentioned in the 1Q/2010 NeuStar-NANPA
Newsletter. This stands for Database Services Management Inc. My
understanding is that DSMI is a subsidiary of Bellcore-now-Telcordia,
and is the successor to what was Lockheed-Martin's NASC, the toll-free
Number Assignment Service Center. Lockheed was becoming involved with
telecom number/code assignment during the 1990s, but then Lockheed was
going to buy some kind of aircraft subsidiary involving communications
satellites, and that was thought to be a conflict of interest with LM's
"neutral" involvement with telecom code and numbering assignments. LM
spun-out NANPA to Warburg-Pincus in 2000 (now known as NeuStar), and
I think that their toll-free NASC was spun-out to (at the time)
Bellcore, now Telcordia, to become part of the DSMI subsidiary or
division or operation of Bellcore/Telcordia.
Well, it looks like late 2011 will be the time when 855 will need to
be implemented in the North American telephone network for further
toll-free numbers!
It isn't unexpected.... 855 "should" be treated as a valid (special)
NPA code in "most" local and toll switches, ILEC, CLEC, wireless,
IXC, independent telco, etc. throughout the North American Network,
but you never know if "everyone" is yet "on board". The 8yy-250-xxxx
testing line-number assignment scheme should still be "in place", but
after ten years, there are all kinds of mergers in telcos/IXCs, and
also sell-offs/spin-offs (VeriZon's legacy BOC NET&T in ME/NH/VT now
part of FairPoint; more legacy GTE/Contel sold off in 2000 and 2002,
and now the VAST bulk of legacy GTE/Contel still held by VeriZon
potentially to be sold to Frontier LEC along with legacy BOC
C&P-West Virginia as well, and possibly other sell-offs/spin-offs),
so I wonder how much of the telco industry is going to be "ready" to
SMOOTHLY implement new 855 toll-free numbers, as well as how the
800-250-0000 thru -1499 line-number assignments still applies!
SO... it will be interesting to see over the next year and a half,
how all of this will "play out". It isn't something that hasn't been
done before, but it was over ten years since it was last applied, and
there have been some changes in ownership and management in the telco
industry since then!
More details to be posted as they are known!
BTW, if it took ten-plus years between 866 and 855, I wonder how long
it might take from before 844 will be opened up after 855 actually
does get opened up as a toll-free area code for additional toll-free
numbering?
Mark J. Cuccia
markjcuccia at yahoo dot com
Lafayette LA, formerly of New Orleans LA pre-Katrina
Fred Atkinson, WB4AEJ
> the FCC of the projected exhaust of current toll free numbers and
> requested approval to release the 855 NPA code. Timeframe for
> availability of 855 numbers is no later than 4Q-2011."
The thing that seems odd is that [with the cost of long distance very
low or non-existant on my telephone services] is why there is such a need
for toll-free numbers any more. When everyone gets flat rate long distance
[and that day *is* coming], they will be of no additional value over
standard numbers.
So why is there such a big rush to growth on them?
Fred
danny burstein
It looks more professional for the company, and gives
the impression that the caller is dealing with a national
organization rather than a local rinky-dink all the
way over in East Cupcake.
(Of course, if the caller is also in East Cupcake, they
might prefer knowing that when they head to the phone...).
> Fred
--
_____________________________________________________
Knowledge may be power, but communications is the key
dan...@panix.com
[to foil spammers, my address has been double rot-13 encoded]
Bill Horne
Companies pay for toll-free service because it comes with accurate ANI
information that allows them to prioritize and route the calls *before*
the call is answered.
If you're calling Land's End, and they have your number in their
database as someone who places orders on every call and spends more than
<secret-threshold-value>, you'll get a live attendant. If not, you get
voice-mail-hell. If you owe them money, you get
voice-mail-hell-with-attitude.
The point is, the decision is made while the line is still ringing. The
economies of scale are worth millions.
Bill Horne
(Filter QRM for direct replies)
Jeff or Lisa
> The original AT&T/Bell System Inward-WATS toll-free 800 was
> introduced in the US over the 1966/67 time-frame. Alabama was the
> first state with intra-state "only" 800 service in 1966, and then
> during Spring 1967, inter-state nationwide (48-states/DC only) 800
> toll-free service was introduced. I don't know when the other 47
> states began their own intra-state "only" 800 service though.
Mark, thanks for your report. Good to hear from you again and hope
you'll be sending the newsgroup more of your excellent contributions.
As an aside, the Bell System offered a manually connected toll free
service since the 1930s. It's name varied by location, but often
called "Enterprise". One dialed their operator and asked for
Enterprise nnnn. The operator looked it up in table to get the actual
number and placed a collect call to it, not bothering to get
permission to accept the charges. This service was offered for both
intra state and interstate callers, even short haul toll callers.
This service apparently ceased in the 1990s. In its last days, one
had to get an AT&T operator supervisor to dig out the conversion table
since the service was very rarely used by that point and most
operators never heard of it. Indeed, once 800 numbers came out, I
don't know why the service lasted as long as it did. Anyone know?
Jeff or Lisa
this.remove-this.wb4aej.com> wrote:
> � � The thing that seems odd is that [with the cost of long distance
> very low or non-existant on my telephone services] is why there is
> such a need for toll-free numbers any more. �When everyone gets flat
> rate long distance [and that day *is* coming], they will be of no
> additional value over standard numbers.
>
> So why is there such a big rush to growth on them?
First, for some reason, large companies have a large amount of toll-
free numbers that seem to end up to the same call center. I don't
know this is, but they do it But also, many companies have different
toll free numbers for different purposes--sales, service, internal,
different product lines, etc.
Secondly, per your post, the cost of long distance is not necessarily
that low for many telephone users, especially people who don't make
many calls, or businesses which don't get residential discounts. The
cost for my unlimited long distance on my residential line is not
inconsequential.
Third, calling a business might result in a long phone call due to
waiting on hold, being transferred, phone mail jail, etc. Someone
paying per minute, even at a modest rate, won't appreciate that.
Thad Floryan
> [...]
> As an aside, the Bell System offered a manually connected toll free
> service since the 1930s. It's name varied by location, but often
> called "Enterprise". One dialed their operator and asked for
> Enterprise nnnn. The operator looked it up in table to get the actual
> number and placed a collect call to it, not bothering to get
> permission to accept the charges. This service was offered for both
> intra state and interstate callers, even short haul toll callers.
>
> This service apparently ceased in the 1990s. In its last days, one
> had to get an AT&T operator supervisor to dig out the conversion table
> since the service was very rarely used by that point and most
> operators never heard of it. Indeed, once 800 numbers came out, I
> don't know why the service lasted as long as it did. Anyone know?
No, but you have a good memory! :-) The last time I heard of such
"Enterprise" numbers must have been during the late 1950s.
A Google search didn't turn up anything useful (the word "enterprise"
is too ubiquitous) but it did find the following article from this
group's archives dated 7-May-2007 in which "Enterprise" is attributed
to AT&T and "Zenith" to GTE:
<http://massis.lcs.mit.edu/TELECOM_Digest_Online/1186.html>
Dunno 'bout everyone else, but reading white print on a star-studded
black background is neither easy nor comfortable for me.
***** Moderator's Note *****
It's a scientific fact that dark backgrounds and white (or color)
symbols, combined with proper lighting, is the most easily readable
presentation. That's why the FAA uses it on "radar" displays in
aircraft control centers.
But you're right about the archives, and I'm working on it.
Vis-a-vis "Enterprise" numbers: some may still be in service -
http://www.co.missoula.mt.us/911center/history.htm
http://state.hi.us/dlnr/chair/pio/HtmlNR/02-09.htm
Bill Horne
Moderator
Barry Margolin
danny burstein <dan...@panix.com> wrote:
> In <008e01cad96a$2b7ea000$c800000a@mishmash> "Fred Atkinson, WB4AEJ"
> <fr...@remove-this.remove-this.remove-this.wb4aej.com> writes:
>
> > The thing that seems odd is that [with the cost of long distance very
> >low or non-existant on my telephone services] is why there is such a need
> >for toll-free numbers any more. When everyone gets flat rate long distance
> >[and that day *is* coming], they will be of no additional value over
> >standard numbers.
>
> It looks more professional for the company, and gives
> the impression that the caller is dealing with a national
> organization rather than a local rinky-dink all the
> way over in East Cupcake.
That's always bugged me about Walt Disney World. To make a reservation
there, you have to call 407-WDISNEY. How could a company like this not
offer a toll free number?
Maybe they think they're so well known and popular that they don't need
this to increase their goodwill. People will go to Disney despite
having to pay to call them (and in many cases they probably make the
reservations through an agent, so they never call in the first place).
--
Barry Margolin, bar...@alum.mit.edu
Arlington, MA
*** PLEASE post questions in newsgroups, not directly to me ***
*** PLEASE don't copy me on replies, I'll read them in the group ***
John Levine
You could get Enterprise/Zenith in very small specific areas, much
smaller than 800 bands. Back when toll service was expensive, some
businesses didn't see any point to paying for calls from people so
far away that they'd be unlikely to become customers.
The other reason it lasted so long is, of course, inertia.
R's,
John
PS: In Philadelphia they were called WX numbers. No idea what if
anything WX stood for.
Thad Floryan
> [...]
> A Google search didn't turn up anything useful (the word "enterprise"
> is too ubiquitous) but it did find the following article from this
> group's archives dated 7-May-2007 in which "Enterprise" is attributed
> to AT&T and "Zenith" to GTE:
>
> <http://massis.lcs.mit.edu/TELECOM_Digest_Online/1186.html>
>
> Dunno 'bout everyone else, but reading white print on a star-studded
> black background is neither easy nor comfortable for me.
>
>
> ***** Moderator's Note *****
>
> It's a scientific fact that dark backgrounds and white (or color)
> symbols, combined with proper lighting, is the most easily readable
> presentation. That's why the FAA uses it on "radar" displays in
> aircraft control centers.
Curious, I found these three (small) examples:
<http://www.sjflight.com/images/RHVRadar2.jpg>
<http://www.eddh.de/x-files/topics/atc-radar.jpg>
<http://vision.arc.nasa.gov/personnel/al/papers/01hfes/01hfes_files/image004.gif>
And (professional) astronomical charts are (mostly) black text
and imagery on a white background so more detail can be discerned;
it's not just to save money on laser printer toner. :-)
Books, too, are (normally) black text on white background.
There's a difference between a reflective presentation (inks and
paints on paper) and a transmittive presentation (CRTs and LCDs),
but I prefer black text on white backgrounds even on my LCDs and
have no problems using them that way 14+ hours/day.
> [...]
> But you're right about the archives, and I'm working on it.
Thank you! I found an easy way to force foreground/background
colors in the browser but it's a PITA to switch back and forth.
markj...@yahoo.com
[ ... ]
> That's always bugged me about Walt Disney World. To make a
> reservation there, you have to call 407-WDISNEY. How could a
> company like this not offer a toll free number?
>
> Maybe they think they're so well known and popular that they don't
> need this to increase their goodwill. People will go to Disney
> despite having to pay to call them (and in many cases they probably
> make the reservations through an agent, so they never call in the
> first place).
Maybe it has to do with the fact that (until a few years ago), Disney
_OWNED_ the local telephone company in that area! Yes, Disney bought
swamp land in the mid-1960s in an uninhabited area which still had
_NO_ tariffed or "classified" telephone company as far as the Florida
Public Service Commission was concerned. Neither Southern Bell, nor
General Telephone, nor whoever another nearby telco that later became
part of United (later Sprint, later Embarq, now part of CenturyLink
after Embarq merged with CenturyTel).
Thus, Disney actually became its "own" telephone company for the Walt
Disney World area. For many years in the 1980s/90s-era, they were a
joint-venture with United though, known as something like "United/
Vista" or "United/Buena Vista" (I forget exactly). Buena Vista is a
name that the Disney organization uses, probably because one of the
streets in Burbank CA where Disney Studios is located is Buena Vista
Blvd; Buena Vista Records is the recording/music arm of Disney.
In more recent years, Disney and United/Sprint must have ceased their
joint-venture as Sprint/Vista in the Disney World area, and Disney
either sold their telco, or went into another joint venture, with
Smart City Telecom.
It has been stated here before that Disney World's telco is the only
(or first) "known" ILEC in the North American Network that rejects
dial pulse dialing, accepting ONLY touch tones. I don't know if this
is actually true or not, but considering that Disney owns their own
telco, and the only "residential" customers had been employees living
at Disney World, Sprint/Vista or United/Vista or whatever they call
themselves, "owned" everything, probably including the actual
telephone units. The residential units were still Disney property, not
the same as regular leased apartments. (And even then, there has also
been "shared tenant service" offered in some places, and I wonder if
the apartment owner can "dictate" as to what type of telephone the
lessees can use? Thankfully, "STS" is not as widespread as it could
have been!)
Mark J. Cuccia
Mark Cuccia
> On 4/11/2010 4:04 PM, Lisa Hancock wrote:
[...]
>> As an aside, the Bell System offered a manually connected toll free
>> service since the 1930s. It's name varied by location, but often
>> called "Enterprise". One dialed their operator and asked for
>> Enterprise nnnn. The operator looked it up in table to get the
>> actual number and placed a collect call to it, not bothering to get
>> permission to accept the charges. This service was offered for both
>> intra state and interstate callers, even short haul toll callers.
>>
>> This service apparently ceased in the 1990s. In its last days, one
>> had to get an AT&T operator supervisor to dig out the conversion
>> table since the service was very rarely used by that point and most
>> operators never heard of it. Indeed, once 800 numbers came out, I
>> don't know why the service lasted as long as it did. Anyone know?
> No, but you have a good memory! :-) The last time I heard of such
> "Enterprise" numbers must have been during the late 1950s.
>
> A Google search didn't turn up anything useful (the word "enterprise"
> is too ubiquitous) but it did find the following article from this
> group's archives dated 7-May-2007 in which "Enterprise" is attributed
> to AT&T and "Zenith" to GTE:
>
> <http://massis.lcs.mit.edu/TELECOM_Digest_Online/1186.html>
I know that you had problems reading white and green text against a
black background, but if you noticed the TDO links on that post, there
were some replies to it. Including one that refuted Pat Townson's
mention that "Enterprise was AT&T and Zenith was GTE". That is just
an old wive's tale! Please let's NOT perpetuate any more of these old
wives tales on these matters!
Enterprise, Zenith, WX, and others were used by the ENTIRE US and
Canadian telco industry, without any regard to who the terminating
telco happened to be, Bell or independent. The use of different
"exchange" names for this manually handled toll-free service prior
to the development of automated 800/InWATS (and even for many
years since 800 was introduced and became commonplace) is that
each LOCATION developed its own "exchange names". In some
locations in the 1930s, "Commerce" was also used.
But "Zenith", "Enterprise", and "WX" became the legacy names used
in the 1960s-forward era.
Also, the "line-number" following the name could be as few as
three-digits or as many as five-digits, at least I've seen three,
four, and five-digit line-numbers.
> ***** Moderator's Note *****
[ ... ]
> Vis-a-vis "Enterprise" numbers: some may still be in service -
>
> http://www.co.missoula.mt.us/911center/history.htm
> http://state.hi.us/dlnr/chair/pio/HtmlNR/02-09.htm
>
> Bill Horne
> Moderator
It takes a LONG TIME for some things to completely disappear! :-)
And telco frequently is required under regulatory orders to
grandfather existing customers under old, mostly discontinued
services, unless telco can prove that it would create a severe
unnecessary financial burden. Thus, there continue to be legacy
"Zenith", "Enterprise", and "WX" numbers out there.
Bill Horne
>On 4/11/2010 6:35 PM, Thad Floryan wrote:
>> [...]
>> A Google search didn't turn up anything useful (the word "enterprise"
>> is too ubiquitous) but it did find the following article from this
>> group's archives dated 7-May-2007 in which "Enterprise" is attributed
>> to AT&T and "Zenith" to GTE:
>>
>> http://massis.lcs.mit.edu/TELECOM_Digest_Online/1186.html
>>
>> Dunno 'bout everyone else, but reading white print on a star-studded
>> black background is neither easy nor comfortable for me.
>>
>>
>> ***** Moderator's Note *****
>>
>> It's a scientific fact that dark backgrounds and white (or color)
>> symbols, combined with proper lighting, is the most easily readable
>> presentation. That's why the FAA uses it on "radar" displays in
>> aircraft control centers.
>
> Curious, I found these three (small) examples:
>
> http://www.sjflight.com/images/RHVRadar2.jpg
> http://www.eddh.de/x-files/topics/atc-radar.jpg
> http://vision.arc.nasa.gov/personnel/al/papers/01hfes/01hfes_files/image004.gif
You're making my case for me: those pictures all show dark
backgrounds, and white or color symbols.
Of course, books are printed with (dark) ink on (white) paper because
that' s the cheapest way to manufacture them, and academic
cost-managers _DO_ care about the cost of toner in your laser printer.
I think we should all go back to the H-19 displays Heathkit used to
put out: Yellow (sometimes Green) text on a dark background. They
displayed 80 symbols per line!
Bill
--
Wes...@aol.com
In a message dated 4/11/2010 2:24:07 PM Central Daylight Time,
> It looks more professional for the company, and gives
> the impression that the caller is dealing with a national
> organization rather than a local rinky-dink all the
> way over in East Cupcake.
>
> (Of course, if the caller is also in East Cupcake, they
> might prefer knowing that when they head to the phone...).
I have noticed recently a number of commercials giving only an 800
(etc.) for a business I believe is a local business and in some cases
I know it is (a car dealer).
In many cases I don't want to deal with an 800 number but a local
business where I can see their product and discuss other questions
that would not be appropriate to deal with a distant place.
I don't see any problem in a business that gives its local number and
an 800 number (the latter being useful for out-of-town potential
customers) .
But in some cases the 800 number is needed for a national ordering
number. A recent case that comes to mind is an order I placed with
JCPenney. I wanted the bank of order-taking people who understood
taking orders, not someone at the local store.
On the contrary, if I want the local store I'm not interested in the
national order-taking bunch.
I can also assure that for many people the costs of long distance are
not irrelevant, no matter how small, and many of them are not aware of
the many options available to lower their long distance calls. Not
everyone is as telecom-savvy as the people in this group.
You ought to hear the arguments before the Oklahoma Corporation
Commission about their proposal to make all of Oklahoma toll-free.
Carriers, big customers and many other people with axes to grind are
screeching about how their oxen will be gored and how much POTS rates
will have to go up.
Wes Leatherock
wes...@aol.com
wlea...@yahoo.com
Wes...@aol.com
In a message dated 4/11/2010 7:55:11 PM Central Daylight Time,
hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com writes:
> As an aside, the Bell System offered a manually connected toll free
> service since the 1930s. It's name varied by location, but often
> called "Enterprise". One dialed their operator and asked for
> Enterprise nnnn. The operator looked it up in table to get the actual
> number and placed a collect call to it, not bothering to get
> permission to accept the charges. This service was offered for both
> intra state and interstate callers, even short haul toll callers.
The operator did not get the collect call accepted because the
subscriber to the "Enterprise" or "Zenith" or "WX" service agreed to
pay for the call and since it was a "toll free" service to the caller
did not necessarily want the caller to know how the call was paid for.
Of course a caller could have placed a collect call but in many cases
would have considered that inappropriate. The receiver of the call
wanted to encourage calls for sales or whatever.
I had such service at Konawa OK, from Wewoka OK in the early 1950s.
Because there were still a shortage of facilities in some places after
World War II, it required separate approval from Bell if it involved
more than one toll center. Even though Konawa was in the same county
as Wewoka (the county seat) the toll center for Konawa (a CDO) was
Ada, in the next county, so two toll centers were involved, Wewoka and
Ada.
Wes Leatherock
wes...@aol.com
wlea...@yahoo.com
Wes...@aol.com
In a message dated 4/13/2010 7:54:33 AM Central Daylight Time,
> I think we should all go back to the H-19 displays Heathkit used to
> put out: Yellow (sometimes Green) text on a dark background. They
> displayed 80 symbols per line!
Amber or green (black background) VT-100 terminals were among the most
readable displays I've seen or used.
Wes Leatherock
wes...@aol.com
wlea...@yahoo.com
Wes...@aol.com
In a message dated 4/13/2010 7:42:08 AM Central Daylight Time,
markj...@yahoo.com writes:
Disney has an unusual situation in Lake Buena Vista, Florida, the
corporate name of the city. They own the town, including the
municipal government. Any businesses they allow to locate there have
to pay municiapl taxes to Lake Buena Vista, which is indeed paying
taxes to Disney. I believe they own the other utlities, too, not just
the telephine company.
Wes Leatherock
wes...@aol.com
wlea...@yahoo.com
Wes...@aol.com
In a message dated 4/13/2010 7:46:01 AM Central Daylight Time,
> But "Zenith", "Enterprise", and "WX" became the legacy names used in
> the 1960s-forward era.
more than one originating exchange, you had to subscribe to the service and
pay for it for each exchange.
Wes Leatherock
wes...@aol.com
wlea...@yahoo.com
John Levine
>(or first) "known" ILEC in the North American Network that rejects
>dial pulse dialing, accepting ONLY touch tones. I don't know if this
It was definitely in the tariff. Never having tried to plug in a pulse
phone in Celebration, I don't know how the switch was programmed.
R's,
John
Paul
Reedy Creek Improvement District - runs most everyting:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reedy_Creek_Energy_Services
--
Paul
T
this.remove-this.wb4aej.com says...
The other benefit is that depending on the 800 carrier you're using,
they'll deliver real time ANI as CLID. You get the actually billing
number and they cannot block it.
hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com
> I have noticed recently a number of commercials giving only an 800
> (etc.) for a business I believe is a local business and in some
> cases I know it is (a car dealer). In many cases I don't want to
> deal with an 800 number but a local business where I can see their
> product and discuss other questions that would not be appropriate to
> deal with a distant place. I don't see any problem in a business
> that gives its local number and an 800 number (the latter being
> useful for out-of-town potential customers).
In the old days businesses often gave three numbers--toll free for out
of state callers, toll free for in-state callers, and the local
number. But lately a great many businesses give out only the 800 (8xx
toll free) number, not even a local number. I think one reason is to
have less confusion over the number--many businesses have an 800
number that spells out their name or service. Also, as others
mentioned, they get the customer's ANI.
But another reason is that many businesses today want callers to go to
the call service center, _not_ the local outlet; they don't want local
branches bothered by telephone calls. I agree with you that this is
undesirable, but apparently businesses think it saves money by having
a call center. I've seen large banks, department stores, and the US
Post Office all have their directory listing as a national 800 number.
> I can also assure that for many people the costs of long distance are
> not irrelevant, no matter how small, and many of them are not aware of
> the many options available to lower their long distance calls. Not
> everyone is as telecom-savvy as the people in this group.
Making things harder for the average consumer is that carriers
frequently change their calling plans. A consumer gets into a good
plan, but a year later the plan is dropped and the consumer must call
again to sign up for a new plan. Banks do this as well with their
account fee policies. Many modern services are not regulated at all
so carriers can change their plans and rates any time without much or
even any notice. They put so many ads and irrelevent junk in one's
phone bill that it's difficult for the average consumer to keep up.
Gray, Charles
(mostly) and named the area the "Reedy Creek Development District"
which is still the legal name today. They have their own security
(police) force and fire department. Sometimes they allow the Orange
County Sheriff on the premises, but Reedy Creek Security handles (that
is, keeps quiet) most incidents. There was an article in (I think)
Smithsonian magzine a couple of years ago that gave a lot of
background.
I have a granddaughter who works in the call center there, and her
mother (my daughter) is an overnight "duty manager".
Regards.
Charles G. Gray
Senior Lecturer - Telecommunications
Oklahoma State University
David Wolff
Barry Margolin <bar...@alum.mit.edu> wrote:
> In article <hpt75d$q7i$1...@reader1.panix.com>,
> danny burstein <dan...@panix.com> wrote:
>
>> In <008e01cad96a$2b7ea000$c800000a@mishmash> "Fred Atkinson, WB4AEJ"
>>
>>> The thing that seems odd is that [with the cost of long distance very
>>> low or non-existant on my telephone services] is why there is such a need
>>> for toll-free numbers any more. When everyone gets flat rate long distance
>>> [and that day *is* coming], they will be of no additional value over
>>> standard numbers.
>>
>> It looks more professional for the company, and gives
>> the impression that the caller is dealing with a national
>> organization rather than a local rinky-dink all the
>> way over in East Cupcake.
>
> That's always bugged me about Walt Disney World. To make a reservation
> there, you have to call 407-WDISNEY. How could a company like this not
> offer a toll free number?
Disney is so big, I wondered why they bothered with the "W" in
407-WDISNEY instead of forcing the entire US phone system to allow them
to use a six-digit subscriber # (407-DISNEY).
Thanks --
David
(Remove "xx" to reply.)
Neal McLain
> Disney is so big, I wondered why they bothered with the "W" in
> 407-WDISNEY instead of forcing the entire US phone system to allow them
> to use a six-digit subscriber # (407-DISNEY).
If they're that big, they could get their own area code. According to
areacode-info.com, 642 is available. Then their main number could be
642-539-6687.
Neal McLain