New Austin area code confirmed to be hoax [telecom]

Is there something Austin-specific about 834 that people should have recognized it as humor?

I was hoping someone here would know. :-) I can't think of anything.

839 spells "TEX" but this is 834. No idea.

8 3 4 TUV DEF GHI

TDG TDH TDI TEG TEH TEI TFG TFH TFI UDG UDH UDI UEG UEH UEI UFG UFH UFI VDG VDH VDI VEG VEH VEI VFG VFH VFI

These are the only possible combinations unless you insert numbers as well.

Regards,

Fred

Something VEGgy about Austin?

Cheers, -- tlvp

I have no idea about 834, but I would point out that presumably for political reasons the area code for Austin has never been changed from the original 512.

When they split 512, the much larger San Antonio got the new area code, 210, not Austin.

Wes Leatherock snipped-for-privacy@yahoo.com snipped-for-privacy@aol.com

In a split, isn't the new area code given to the area growing faster than the area that keeps the old area code as the faster growing area is expected to be split again?

It may not have been politics. Now, if Austin is growing faster than San Antonio, you're probably right.

It's good to be the state capital I suppose. :-)

I lived in the Melbourne, Florida area in the mid-90s. When Tallahassee lost 904 to 850 this caused problems for Melbourne city hall. Their phone system was so ancient it could not be programmed to accomodate the new area code format. This meant the city of Melbourne could no longer call the state capital. Of course they quickly remedied this.

Unless I've been told wrong, eastern Kentucky has been allowed to keep

606 because of the economic impact to having to change area codes. I can't believe changing part of a phone number would cause economic hardship. Anyone know the real story?

John

It is and by some far off year, 2040 maybe, metro Austin will be larger than metro San Antonio. Then again if Loving County, Texas (the least populated county in the country) continues growth at its present rate it'll dwarf Los Angeles County by the end of the century. For the record it jumped from 50-something residents to 80-something from 2000 to 2010, but they claim they were undercounted in 2000. Still, that's about 50% growth in a decade.

And right people, the math doesn't work for it to dwarf LA County. I'm being funny about the absurdity of numbers sometimes.

John

Typically, the place with more political influence keeps the old code. Hence Austin kept 512 and Boston kept 617.

R's, John

"economic hardship" does apply.

Consider how many business have to re-print all their stationary, re-do all their product literature, 'boiler-plate' advertising, etc.

*EVERYWHERE* their phone number appears has to be changed.

Also, a number of 'potential' customers, making a call that requires the NPA, and calling from an 'old' instance of the number, *will* be put off by getting an intercept recording, rather than the company. If they then search for 'any' business providing the goods/services they're looking looking for, they're likely to call a 'local' company, instead of the one in the foreign area-code. Permanently lost business for that company.

The 'direct' costs -- stationary, product literature, etc. -- are fairly easy to evaluate, and are relatively temporary. The second-, third-, fourth-, etc., order effects are, subtle, and much more difficult to quantify, but they are of _much_ longer duration.

For a company that is barely viable, these extra expenses can easily be "the straw that broke the camel's back", and cause it to go under. I don't have any specific case-studies to cite, but the phenomenon is well known in business circles.

They probably have to change their stationery too. (Sorry, couldn't resist).

Isn't this partially what permissive dialing periods are for? Eventually they'll exhaust their supply of stationery, business cards, etc. with the old number and when they re-order they request the new number. And in the big scheme of things is it THAT big of an expense?

That could be. Having once lived in the present-day 606 area code, I find it difficult to believe a thriving mail-order industry using a local 606 number really exists. The locals will continue to dial 7 digits like they always did and those in the area who have to make a long distance call will be aware of the change since it affected them too.

Not to be insensitive, but if an area code change breaks the camel's back, it must've been a pretty weak camel. In the Kentucky example, certainly there were businesses near metro Lexington and Cincinnati hanging on by the skin of their teeth. What about them? Do we only change the area code for businesses that can afford it?

Hopefully the day of splits is over and we'll just see overlays from here on out eliminating this problem.

Or, golly, we could cease opening new area codes entirely and address the problem directly instead of ignoring it.

The solution for geographically-based telephone numbers is to assign all numbers for that polygon from one pool of telephone numbers. The same solution that makes Local Number Portability work would eliminate wasteful inventories of unassigned line numbers.