Once upon a time 737 was slated to be overlaid on 512 in the Austin area. This never happened. If memory serves me correctly it was combination of the dot-com bust, less demand for numbers, and changes to how groups of numbers were parceled out that prevented this from happening.
I sometimes read a humor site detailing funny, albeit rather juvenile, text messages that are identified only by area code. I've seen a couple referencing 737 and one of them mentioned "Texas". We do not have 10-digital dialing here, I checked. And as far as I can tell no
737 numbers have been issued. I understand this site is hardly an authoritative source, but has 737 become active? I even did a Google News search, but only got a bunch of irrelevant articles plus a ton about airliners.
John
- - John Mayson
formatting link
***** Moderator's Note *****
"Hardly an authoritative source"?
It ain't the General Accounting Office, kid, but we do our best ...
NANPA says 737 is not active. If you can make calls with 7D, that definitively tells you that your area is not overlaid, since the FCC will not permit overlays without mandatory 10D dialing.
The TX-PUC approved a "partial" overlay of 512 back in 2001. NANPA and the PUC announced the new "partial" overlay area code as 737, but the implementation dates were "TBD". This is how 512/737 remained ever since.
737 was to overlay only certain exchange areas within 512, mostly the main corridor between Austin and San Marcos, but the other fringes of
512 would retain seven-digit local dialing and not have any 737 numbers at the outset, but the overlay would have most likely expanded at a later date. However, NO dates were ever determined, neither for the initial partial overlay, nor for any later expansion to overlay the rest of 512.
But ironically you should inquire about this now, because recently, NeuStar-NANPA and the telephone industry drafted a petition which has already been presented to the TX-PUC (last week in January 2010), to re-open the 512/737 overlay, but this time, the telephone industry wants the TX-PUC to approve a full overlay of all of 512 with 737, along with the obvious mandatory ten-digit local dialing. This is still pending before the TX-PUC, so there arent even any "potential" impelementation dates at this time. The TX-PUC still has to approve this petition by the telephone industry "thru" NANPA.
ALSO, Remember that NANPA does _NOT_ make the choice of split vs. overlay. NANPA presents several relief options to the telephone industry when NANPA feels that relief is needed for an area code. It is then a consensus process by the telephone industry who attend the in-person meetings or participate on conference calls as to the particular choice of relief method(s) to be presented to the state regulatory agency by NANPA. Canada has a similar process, where the Canadian telcos meet in-person and/or by teleconference, have their consensue process as to which relief method is destired, which is then presented to the CRTC (regulatory) by the CNA (Canadian Numbering Administrator). NANPA and the CNA do NOT "vote" in the consensus process. Both are "neutral" parties which present various relief method options for an area code. The telcos involved can even present additional relief method options for discussion if they so choose. And then after a vote by the telcos themselves (but NOT including any "vote" from NANPA or the CNA), then NANPA presents the industry's decisions as a petition before the state commission, and the CNA presents the Canadian telcos' decisions as a petition before the CRTC.
So, in closing, 737 is a PENDING overlay (partial or complete) overlay to 512 in the Austin/San Marcos/vicinity area in Texas, but no dates were ever determined. And most recently, the telco industry has requested NANPA to re-open the procedings before the TX-PUC, and this time are requesting a review by the PUC for a "complete" or "full" overlay of 512 with 737.
Even earlier the 512 area code included San Antonio and into the Lower Reio Grand Valley. It was split (not overlaid) and San Antonio et al got 210. I don't have any evidence for this, but I figured the telco thought there might have been resistance by state officials to chaning the area code for the state capital and all the state agencies. Wes Leatherock snipped-for-privacy@aol.com snipped-for-privacy@yahoo.com
Cabling-Design.com 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.