Oh yeah... the typical "New Yorker" response. Anything that isn't part of the urban east or west coasts (or at least an urban midwest city like Chicago or Detroit) is simply "flyover" country.
I STILL say that if you look at ALL of the numerous other CITIES and towns involved in "1+ means toll" parts of the US (and ALL of Canada, which also includes all urban areas of Canada), you'll find that the MAJORITY of people have been dialing a 1+ (or some other prefix) for toll calls, since the 1960s era, when DDD became widespread to the point of being "nearly" universal.
NANPA's website is NOT the authority WHATSOEVER on specific local dialing procedures. Their website's notes have to be taken as simply GENERALIZATIONS based on "entire" NPAs. Actual local dialing instructions, especially when it comes to inter-NPA local dialing need to be found in the front of local telephone directories of the places in question, or they might be documented in state regulatory filings. As I said in my earlier post, "protected" c.o.codes for 7-digit local dialing across NPA boundaries into adjacent NPAs is still rather widespread throughout the US, for both intra-state and inter-state, inter-NPA local dialing. Personally, I'm not so much "amazed" that this still exists, as I am rather disappointed, since I WOULD prefer that ten-digit local dialing replace these situations, since it would allow the "life" of both NPAs to last longer if "code protection" were to be discontinued -- just as much as I would prefer that ten-digit local dialing replace ALL seven-digit local dialing everywhere in the NANP (at least the US and Canada), so that there would NEVER be an area code split ever again, that ALL new area codes would be overlays!
No, I DON'T know! And I DON'T agree! And I tend to think that most people in the US (and Canada) would disagree as well, regarding your mandatory 1+ for local calls dialed as ten-digits and crossing an NPA boundary or within an overlay area, and the lack of a 1+ on toll calls simply dialed as just seven-dgits within the "home" (non-overlaid) NPA.
The perfect (landline) dialing plan, as long as there is still TOLL as we have known it, is:
TEN-digits for local or free calls (no 1+ is required, although 1+ten-digits would be permitted);
and 1+ten-digits mandatory for all toll calls, and also permitted for local (free) calls.
If ever toll as we have known it is completely eliminated, then all calls within the NANP (or at least within the US, and maybe Canada) can then be dialed as either (both) ten-digits or (and) 1+ten-digits, at the calling party's discretion, since toll would no longer exist -- all such calls would be "local" or "free".
BTW, there is at least one (non-Bell) exchange in New York State that still dials 1+ before "home" NPA "sent-paid" toll calls, and that is Fishers' Island (631-788). They are in the 631 NPA in Suffolk County on Long Island (which split from 516 in 1999/2000, 516 retaind by Nassau County on Long Island). I was told by the manager of Fishers' Island Telephone Company that they still even were able to dial1+seven-digits (and 0+seven-digits) for toll calls within their own NPA. (Fishers' Island is local only unto themselves; there is no EAS to any other Suffolk COunty Long Island exchange nor to any nearby at&t/SNET exchange in NPA 860 eastern CT). And while 1+seven-digits (and 0+seven-digits) home-NPA toll calling was supposed to be completely eliminated throughout the NANP by January 1995 (most places going to 1+ or 0+ all ten-digits by including the "home" NPA), I tend to think that there could still be numerous small local independent telcos elsewhere in the US which still allow 1+ or 0+ seven-digits for "home" NPA toll. They obviously have to have a three or five second post-dial-delay before "timing out" (which a trailing # pound can cut through right away) in cases of "ambiguity" following the seventh digit (not counting the 1+ or 0+ prefix), due to the NXX format now being used for BOTH office oodes AND area codes. I don't even know if state regulatory (or the FCC) really even cares about such local telco oddities, as long as there are no complaints by the locals. ***** Moderator's Note *****
Mike Z said:
IIRC, I rejected the original post because the subject line referred to the digest instead of the article _in_ the digest. Sorry if I didn't make it clear you needed to resubmit.
I also reject posts that have "Quoted Printable" encoding if they show the equal signs and hex values that quoted-printable encoding sometimes leaves in messages.
So, PLEASE don't use a Subject such as "Re: Telecom Digest". Also, PLEASE don't use Quoted-printable encoding _or_ html. The Digest is text-only.
Bill Horne Temporary Moderator