Re: Crossborder 7-Digit

****************************** PAT: PLEASE DO NOT display my email address anywhere in this post! Thnx ******************************

Robert Bonomi wrote: wrote: >> For you geography fans out there: >> Just out curiosity, would anyone know the rates and dialing >> procedures between such very close small border towns of: >> Madawaska, Maine and Edmunston, New Brunswick >> Pembina, North Dakota and Emerson, Manitoba >> Sweetgrass, Montana and Coutts, Alberta >> Thomas Falls, Montana and Burke Idaho > Burke, Idaho is, for practical purposes, a ghost town > (Wallace, ID is the "big" town in the area, population circa 1100.) > All inter-state dialing in that vicinity is 1+areacode+number.` > Pretty much the entire width of the state is the "local calling area", > less than 30 miles _west_ gets you into WA state. > Telco switching offices are "few and far between" up there -- > population density is *low*. I know there's one in Wallace, and one > in Sand Point. I think there's also one in Cour D'elane, and maybe > Kellogg.

In my earlier reply on this subject regarding the US/Canada crossborder situations, I mentioned that two of the four "pairs" above that were asked about were indeed local (free) calls! I also referenced Ray Chow's Local Calling Guide website as well, which also has a summary of all known US/Canada bordertown pairs which have local calling with each other. Pembina ND (USA) and Emerson MB (Canada) are not indicated as local (free) at Ray Chow's website -- so I assume that they are toll to each other.

I also didn't realize that the fourth and last entry inquired about was intra-USA inter-state -- the Burke ID and "Thomas Falls" MT pair.

Detailed telephone company numbering and geographical records show that Burke ID is associated with the Wallace ID exchange. This is all GTE of North Idaho, now part of Verizon. Ray Chow's website does show that Wallace ID (which includes Burke ID) is local with other nearby north ID exchanges (all of them GTE now Verizon), but doesn't indicate any local calling with anything in nearby Montana.

I also was unable to find ANYTHING called "Thomas Falls" MT in any telephone company lists, nor on any map search programs (Mapquest, Yahoo Maps, Google Maps, etc). But I was able to find *Thompson* Falls in Montana, not too far away from the Wallace/Burke ID area. Telephone company numbering and geographic lists show that Thompson Falls MT is served by the Blackfoot Telephone Co-operative. Ray Chow's website shows that Thompson Falls ID has local (free) calling with other nearby MT exchanges, but doesn't have any local calling with anything in nearby Idaho.

The feds regulated max rates for (domestic U.S.) inter-state calls, > and a formula based strictly on distance was employed -- Burke > (vicinity) to Thomas Falls would have been about the same as Omaha NE > to Council Bluffs IA,

But there are some local (free) interstate calling situations, some of them within the same LATA (and LATAs can cover all or part of two or more adjacent states), or the interstate local calling could even be between different LATAs as well. I don't know how much regulation the FCC has over these arrangements after they have been put into effect, but I do know that any proposal for future interstate calling arrangements (and international, such as US/Canada) would require FCC approval, as well as approval by both US-state regulatory agencies, and if involving Canada at the border, the CRTC would also have to approve. Even any proposed future local calling arrangements within a state but crossing over a LATA boundary has to get a "nod" from the FCC, as well as from the state regulatory agency.

Carter Lake IA gets its dialtone from Omaha NE, and I think that there has been local calling between the two going back many many decades. Council Bluffs IA didn't always have local calling with the Omaha NE area, but ISTR heraing that local (free) calling has probably been in place since the mid-1960s era. But there are still various calls within this section of the NE/IA border that are toll, although they are within the same "LATA". The Omaha NE (and vicninty) LATA does cover quite a bit of Iowa side as well as the Nebraska side.

or Souix City IA to South Souix City SD.

NOTE: It is Sioux City IA, South Sioux City NE, and North Sioux City SD.

These three communities have local calling with each other, and area all part of the same LATA (the Qwest Telco "Sioux City IA" LATA).

The incumbent telco (Qwest, formerly US West, formerly Northwestern Bell) in Sioux City IA also provides dialtone to the N.Sioux City SD customers. But Qwest (US West, Northwestern Bell) in S.Sioux City ND customers have their own central office switch. (However, CLECs and wireless have their own network structure which is not necessarily following exactly what the incumbent Qwest does for providing service and dialtone).

I don't know for certain, but I would assume that the local calling in the Sioux City IA / N.Sioux City SD / S.Sioux City NE situation might still be permissive seven-digits.

John Levine wrote:

U.S. phone companies ended "protected" prefixes several years ago. > That was the arrangement near the edge of an area code that let you > dial local calls with 7D into another area code, by reserving the > prefix in both area codes. > Canada still had this arrangement until I think last year, notably in > the Ottawa / Hull area which is partly in 613, partly in 819. They're > also ending protected codes so people in Ottawa now have to dial all > ten digits to Hull and vice versa.

The practice of "protecting" central office codes across state or area code boundaries to facilitate permissive seven-digit local dialing is

*still* being practiced, despite being "frowned upon" by the telco industry and the FCC/CRTC, but is apparantly still being "winked at", mostly in rural areas. However, remember that "code protection" usually means protecting a central office code from being assigned in an adjacent area code *ONLY* in the immediate vicinity, NOT from being assigned "anywhere else" within the adjacent area code. But the Ottawa ON/Hull QC arrangement allowed "full dual dialability" of either/both 613 or/both 819 for calling into that metro area. All Ottawa ON side 613-NXX codes had to be fully protected from being assigned *anywhere* in the QC 819 area code, and vice-versa, all Hull QC side 819-NXX codes had to be fully protected from being assigned *anywhere* in the ON 613 area code.

This type of *full* code "protection" was rare in the US (and quite possibly rare in Canada as well). I don't think that there is any more "full" central office code protection anywhere else in the NANP, except for the Ottawa/Hull situation. With one exception (which I'll elaborate on in a moment), ALL forms of code protection in the Ottawa ON/Hull QC area is being ended by this year. And all (local, free) calls between Ottawa ON (613) and Hull QC (819) will require full ten-digit dialing (the correct destination area code followed by seven-digits) later this year. Additionally, ALL (local) calls

*everywhere else* in both 613 ON and 819 QC will also be mandatory ten-digits! Even if you are "local only unto your own exchange"! Area Code 613 is not expected to need "relief" (most likely an overlay) until 2012 or 2015 (by eliminating all code protection in the Ottawa/Hull area), and Area Code 819 is not expected to need "relief" for decades to come (especially after eliminating all code protection). Yet mandatory ten-digit local dialing is being extended across the entire coverage area of both area codes!

The one exeption of code protection in the Ottawa/Hull area applies only to the NXX office codes for the Federal Government of Canada's own Centrex system. These five or six office codes will continue to exist in both 819 and 613, and will be dialable with either of those two area codes.

More information on Ottawa ON (613)/Hull QC (819) can be found from the Canadian Numbering Administrator's website

formatting link
Neustar NANPA even has a Planning Letter on this issue as well:
formatting link
"NPA 613 & NPA 819 Relief -- Phase One -- Dial Plan Change" dated August 20, 2004.

Pat Townson wrote:

And did you know that through the 1960's and into the 1970's, prefixes > were not duplicated in adjacent area codes/states.

For the most part, that only applied to the area covered under a local calling area that "straddled" a state/NPA code boundary. With a very few rare exceptions, there wasn't any "full" or "total" protection against assignment "anywhere" in adjacent area codes.

For example, since Hammond/Whiting, IN (219 but exactly on the state > line with Illinois and Chicago) since there was 219-931, 219-932, > 219-933, 219-659 there were NOT any 931,932,933, 659 exchanges in > area 312.

Well, the 219-NNX office codes (Indiana side) that were immediately adjacent to the Illinois (312) side might not be duplicated anywhere and everywhere throughout the 312 area code (Chicago IL Metro). But I doubt that OTHER parts of 219, much further away from Chicago IL Metro, much "deeper" into Indiana in NPA 219, woud have had their 219-NNX office codes "unduplicated, anywhere and everywhere" in area code 312. And I doubt that ALL 312-NNX office codes were "unduplicated, anywhere and everywehre" in the 219 area code. "Full and total" code protection was rare in the US. I think such code protection might have been "approached" in the "old" days in the Washington DC Metro area (which also includes northern VA and suburban MD), but even there it wasn't "perfect" to the degree that "NOTHING" in the immeidate vicinity was "completely unduplicated (rather untriplicated), anywhere and everywhere else" throughout 202/301/703 -- although C&P Tel did come close to it!

And even the 312 (IL)/219 (IN) form of code protection you describe wasn't always universal neither. New York City (212) had NNX office codes that were also assigned in New Jersey (201) even in northeastern NJ across the Hudson River from New York City, and vice-versa. And that was the situation even in the 1950s and earlier. The NJ (Newark, etc) side had developed its switching and office codes separately from the New York City side. Calls across the Hudson River had to be placed through the operator until probably in the 1940s era, when they could then be dialed in either direction. However, a special access prefix (11+) had to be used. By the later 1950s, the use of the area code (201 for NJ from NY, 212 for NY from NJ) began to be dialed before the seven-digit (two-letter five-digit) number when calling across the Hudson River.

Anyhow, "full, complete, total" office code "protection" in adjacent area codes was rare in both the US and Canada. And I think that the last example (with the exception of the Government of Canada's

613/819-NXX centrex office codes) will disappear later this year.

And "code protection" to allow LOCAL AREA seven-digit dialing across a state/NPA boundary, while "frowned upon" by the telco industry and the federal regulators (FCC, CRTC), is still being practiced, mostly in small towns and rural areas, to allow seven-digit cross-boundary local dialing. I think that the state regulatory agencies are the ones that mandate such code protection to facilitate seven-digit cross-boundary local dialing. But this "code protection" only applies to protecting the code from being assigned in the opposite state/NPA only in the local calling area scope, not against being assigned "anywhere and everywhere else" in the opposite/adjacent state(s)/NPA(s). HOWEVER, if there is an overlay in any of those adjacent area codes, then ten-digit local dialing is required not only within the overlay area, but also for all local calls from the overlaid area, as well as *to* the overlaid area even from local non-overlaid adjacent area codes!

[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: You are correct there. In the 312/219 (IL/IN) case, by the time one traveled east as far as around Gary, IN the prefixes were being repeated on the Illinois side again. And if you got much further south than Dyer, IN or Crown Point, IN they were back to 'usual' again also. There was always an odd historical quirk about how that far northest part of Indiana came to be considered 'Illinois Bell' rather than the more logical (regards loca- tion) 'Indiana Bell'. It went back to the pre-Illinois Bell days of the Chicago Telephone Company. All the big shot executives, the Gary's of US Steel fame, the Rockefeller's of Standard Oil, etc had their offices in _Chicago_ but their industrial complexes (Whiting Refinery, Sinclair Oil, US Steel, Inland Steel, etc) along the lake front on the Indiana side. Time line, 1880-1890 phones coming in vogue _in bigger cities_ but still sort of rare in small areas, but in that time of the industrial age, the refineries, steel mills, etc were going full blast. Mssrs. Rockefeller, Gary and the other guys wanted quick, easy ways to stay in touch with their foremen and superintendents. Chicago Telephone Company could not quite justify the cost of line expansion 'that far away from the city itself'. A consortium of the business leaders (who had plants, mills, etc in the Hammond/Whiting/East Chicago/Gary, IN region subsidized the earliest of the phone lines going in that direction and Chicago Telephone Company was glad to accomodate them under those circumstances. Chicago Tel later became Illinois Bell, a _Chicago based_ company. Sometime in the 1970's Illinois Bell decided to balance things up according to state lines and geography a little, and traded that territory off to 'Indiana Bell' a few years prior to divestiture. PAT]
Reply to
Anthony Bellanga
Loading thread data ... Forums website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.