It's disappointing that the report does not seem to
> include a list of the NPAs which would need to convert
> to mandatory 10D in order to bring this plan to
> fruition. Given that absence, I am skeptical that the
> cost figures mentioned in the report are accurate. I
> am also completely underwhelmed by the arguments
> made against the alternatives of using an N11 code
> (such as 211) instead of 988.
All N11 codes are already in use. See NANPA:
formatting link
However it certainly would have been possible to expand the 211 series; e.g, 2110, 2111, 2112, 2113...
Neal McLain Brazoria, Texas