[GreenKeys] Fwd: Interesting story on Telephone Area Codes
Don Robert House
[email protected]
Thu, 23 Oct 2003 17:00:00 -0500
Our thanks to Bob Liddy for passing this on.
> TELECOM Digest Wed, 22 Oct 2003 00:32:00 EDT Volume 22 : Issue 712
> >
>> Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson
>>
>> The NANP is 56-Years-Old Wednesday, October 22 (Mark J Cuccia)
>>
>> All contents here are copyrighted by Patrick Townson and the
>> individual writers/correspondents. Articles may be used in other
>> journals or newsgroups, provided the writer's name and the Digest are
>> included in the fair use quote. By using -any name or email address-
>> included herein for -any- reason other than responding to an article
>> herein, you agree to pay a hundred dollars to the recipients of the
>> email. WE DO NOT PERMIT NAME/EMAIL ADDRESS HARVESTING FROM THIS
>> JOURNAL. 'SALTED' EMAIL ADDRESSES APPEAR HEREIN TO VERIFY THIS. YOU
>> GET SUED IN SMALL CLAIMS COURT IF YOU GET CAUGHT SPAMMING OR SENDING
>> VIRUSES. DON'T DO IT.
>>
>> See the bottom of this issue for subscription and archive details and
>> the name of our lawyer; other stuff of interest.
>>
>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>> Date: Tue, 21 Oct 2003 21:09:57 CDT
>> From: Mark J Cuccia <[email protected]>
>> Subject: The NANP is 56-Years-Old Wednesday, October 22
>>
>>
>> The NANP (North American Numbering Plan), as it was originally
>> "finalized", and then built-upon, expanded, and developed, "as we have
>> known it", does "officially" turns 56 this Wednesday, 22-October-2003.
>>
>> AT&T issued a memo, authored by Harold L. Ryan, dated 22-October-1947,
>> regarding the subject "Numbering Plan Area Arrangements -- Toll Area
>> codes -- Letter to all General Traffic Managers -- attached Map and
>> List of Codes".
>>
>> I do *NOT* have a copy of that memo! I wish I did, though! :-)
>>
>> But I do have reference to the date and title of the memo.
>>
>> There were prelminary plans for a nationwide / continent-wide
>> telephone numbering plan for Operator and later customer toll dialing,
>> being drafted in the early to mid 1940s, one of them being where every
>> toll (and tandem) switch in the US and Canada, some 2,600 of them
>> (what an ironic number, twenty-six hundered for the approximate total
>> number of toll switches in the US/Canada! If you know what I mean!
>> :-), would be uniquely identified with an Operator Toll Dialing code
>> of the form 0XXXX, zero followed by four-more-digits. Operators were
>> already using a limited form of regional OTD in some parts of the US
>> and Canada, since the 1920s, using 0XX and 1XX SXS OTD codes, which
>> customers weren't able to access (or at least not supposed to be able
>> to access). These codes *have* continued to this day for internal
>> operator and network routing purposes, and are not supposed to be
>> dialable by customers.
>>
>> Anyhow, to have actual Nationwide Operator Toll Dialing, the use of
>> individual 0XXXX codes for each toll center to reach specific
>> *customers* would have been a bit "awkward" because of the large
>> number of individual routing/area codes, as well as whenever there
>> needed to be "re-homes" or growth.
>>
>> By 1945, the basics of the plan used today were being developed, where
>> there would be a 3-digit "Area Code" of the form N1X, a three-digit
> > office code (based on the office-name and a digit), and the four-digit
>> line-number. There is a map of the US (Canada was intended to be
>> included but wasn't indicated on the map), which divided up the
>> country into sixty numbering plan areas, some states having multiple
> > area codes, some states having one area code, and there were some
>> instances where two or three states would "share" the same area
>> code. The map was published in articles on OTD which appeared in 1945
>> in Bell Labs Record and also Bell Telephone Magazine. I had posted
>> information on these in previous issues of Telecom Digest (back in
>> 1996 and 1997).
>>
>> By 1946, the area code numbering was revamped to where Canada was
>> specifically included. Also both N0X and N1X format codes would be
>> included. There were 86 area codes for the US and Canada in this
>> draft. States which were to have one and only one area code had N0X
>> format codes. States which were to have more-than-one area code were
>> to have had N1X format codes. Also, all codes within those multiple
>> code states were in a sequential range, i.e., NY State would have had
>> 212, 213, 214, 215, 216, and also in a "linear progression/adjacency"
>> across the state. Canada "as a whole" was to be treated as if it were
>> a "single state" with multiple area codes, and would have had:
>>
>> 912, 913 Ontario
>> 914, 915 Quebec
>> 916 Maritime Provinces
>> 917 Manitoba
>> 918 Saskatchewan
>> 919 Alberta
>> 910 British Columbia
>>
>> And while this might have "looked nice" in that there was a "block" of
>> sequential area codes within multi-code states, and within Canada, the
>> "growth" aspect would have been difficult (maybe impossible) to keep
>> things in these "nice" ranges. To truly accommodate growth, the
>> initial benefits of this particular numbering plan would have to be
>> violated and even discarded completely. I had posted on this plan in
>> 1996/97 issues as well. pwd
>>
>> But by October 1947, AT&T issued yet another numbering plan for area
>> codes in the US/Canada for OTD and ultimate customer DDD. This is the
>> plan that has mostly been built upon since then. And while I have
>> posted the original "chart" of the NPA assignment layout in previous
>> posts to TELECOM Digest, since this *IS* the plan that survived, and
>> has its 56th anniversary this Wednesday, 22-October-2003, I'll go into
>> the details of what was intended in October 1947, and how it developed
>> since.
>>
>> This plan carried over the N0X format for single area code states, and
>> N1X format codes for multi-area code states. There were initially 86
>> area codes assigned (as in the previous 1946 proposal). But Canada was
>> now treated as multi-province, where the provinces followed the same
>> rules as the states in the US. Ontario and Quebec had (as of Oct. 1947)
>> two area codes each, and were assigned N1X codes. The other provinces
>> were assigned one area code each, and had N0X codes. The Maritime
>> Provinces shared a single N0X code (902). This still "exists" to this
>> day in the smaller form that Nova Scotia *AND* Prince Edward Island
>> both share 902.
>>
>> As growth came about in the 1950s, this N0X vs. N1X "rule" for single
>> code vs. multi-code states/provinces was abolished, first when the
>> states with only ONE area code (N0X) were split in 1953 (the
>> additional code was still of the N1N format), and next when both
>> single-code states (N0X) and multi-code states (N1N) were split and
>> new N0X format codes were assigned as additional codes in 1954.
>>
>> Also in the Oct. 1947 initial assignments was that shorter/quicker dial
>> "pulls" or "spins", or fewer dial PULSES, for an N0X *OR* an N1X code
>> (EACH FORMAT TAKEN SEPARATELY, as N0X and N1X had specific different
>> assignments as mentioned above), were assigned to higher incoming
>> volume locations.
>>
>> 212 for NYCity
>> 213 for Los Angeles
>> 214 for Dallas
>> 312 for Chicago
>> 216 for Cleveland
>> 313 for Detroit
>> 314 for St.Louis
>> 412 for Pittsburgh
>> 414 for Milwaukee
>> 415 for San Francisco
>> etc.
>>
>> and in the N0X states/DC:
>> 201 for NJ
>> 202 for DC
>> 203 for CT
>> 301 for MD
> > 302 for DE
>> 401 for RI
>>
>> Even though RI, MD, DE might not have had a lot of incoming calls,
>> they were still along the eastern seaboard of highly populated
>> surrounding territory, and had more incoming calls than other
>> single-area-code states elsewhere in the US.
> >
>> There is one anomoly in the above, and I think it was an error in printing
>> that became embedded:
>>
>> 413 (4+3 is seven pulses) became western MA (Springfield/etc)
>> 617 (6+7 is thirteen pulses) became eastern MA (Boston/etc)
>>
>> More pulses for inbound to Boston than the seven pulses for inbound to
>> Springfield and the more rural western MA area.
>>
>> There was *NEVER* any "special" DDD tests involving Springfield that
>> have ever been documented, despite what some people claim as the
>> "reason" that Springfield had a shorter/quicker "pull/spin", or
>> "lower" (fewer pulses) area code than Boston. If this was true,
>> documentation to it would have shown up by now and eventually posted
>> to the Digest/Archives "in perpetuity". But that has never seemed to
>> happen.
>>
>> Even if there were some special DDD tests involving Springfield, it
>> would have been sometime in the 1950s or 60s, WELL AFTER 1947. The 413
>> vs. 617 assignments re Springfield vs. Boston was "embedded" on the
>> paper assignments as of 22-October-1947.
>>
>> (Springfield MA *DID* become an AT&T IOC International Operator
>> Center, a city of gateway overseas operators, but that was in the
>> mid-1970s, LONG after the Oct. 1947 plan was "finalized").
>>
>> N0X Form (States/Provinces with only ONE code assigned)
>> (40 codes assigned):
>>
>> 201 NJ 301 MD 401 RI 501 AR 601 MS 701 ND 801 UT 901 TN
>> 202 DC 302 DE 402 NE 502 KY 602 AZ 702 NV 802 VT 902 mrtm.prv.
>> 203 CT 303 CO 403 AB 503 OR 603 NH 703 VA 803 SC
>> 204 MB 304 WV 404 GA 504 LA 604 BC 704 NC
>> 205 AL 305 FL 405 OK 505 NM 605 SD
>> 206 WA 306 SK 406 MT
>> 207 ME 307 WY
>> 208 ID
>>
>> (902 originally for all of the Maritime Provinces: NB, NS, PEI, NF/LB)
>>
>> N1N Form (States/Provinces with several codes assigned)
>> (46 codes assigned):
>>
>> 212 NY 312 IL 412 PA 512 TX 612 MN 712 IA 812 IN ------
>> 213 CA 313 MI 413 MA 513 OH 613 ON 713 TX ------ 913 KS
>> 214 TX 314 MO 414 WI 514 PQ 614 OH ------ 814 PA 914 NY
>> 215 PA 315 NY 415 CA 515 IA ------ 715 WI 815 IL 915 TX
>> 216 OH 316 KS 416 ON ------ 616 MI 716 NY 816 MO 916 CA
>> 217 IL 317 IN ------ 517 MI 617 MA 717 PA
>> 218 MN ------ 418 PQ 518 NY 618 IL
>> ------ 319 IA 419 OH
>>
>> Linc Madison has some of this information at his website:
>>
>> http://www.LincMad.com/table1947.html
>> (the above chart/table)
>>
>> http://www.LincMad.com/map1947.html
>> (a map of the 22-Oct-1947 assignments)
>>
>> Note that in the October 1947 finalized original plan, there are no
>> area codes assigned of the forms N09, N00, N11, nor N10. The N11
>> format has been used (initially only in Panel and #1XB areas, later
>> many SXS areas also began to use N11, and eventually all central
>> office areas used N11 codes regardless of equipment type) as "short"
>> 3-digit codes for special services (211 for the Long Distance
>> Operator, 411 for Information or Directory, 611 for Repair Service,
>> 811 for the Business Offfice, and later on 911 for Emergencies, and
>> other assignments/reservations over more recent years).
>>
>> The N09 format codes weren't assigned until some ten years later, in
>> 1957. The N10 format codes were first assigned for TWX (Teletypewriter
>> Exchange Service) in Summer 1962, but when TWX service was completely
>> taken over by Western Union (in the United States) on WU's own switch
>> network (separate from the Bell System telephone DDD network) circa
>> 1981, those N10 format codes were now "vacant" and re-assigned
>> starting in the early 1990s. The N00 format codes were first used
>> starting in the mid-1960s, and always for *special* non-geographic
>> services, the first being 800 Toll-Free "Inward-WATS".
>>
>> In addition to the Springfield/413 vs. Boston/617 question, there is
>> yet ANOTHER "old wives' tale" which keeps getting repeated, but which
> > is simply *NOT* true, and that is that c.o.codes/names/letters/exchanges
>> assigned in one area code were NOT (initially) assigned "at all" in
>> "any" adjacent area code.
>>
>> That presumption is *NOT* true one bit!
>>
>> Central Office code assginments were *already* occurring *LONG* before
> > the area code format was even dreamed of. The only thing that telco
>> *tried* to do for "communities of interest" along state-lines, was/is
>> not to assign "duplicate" c.o.codes in adjacent states ALONG THAT
>> LINE, IN THE LOCAL or EAS calling area, so as to TRY to permit 7-digit
>> (2L-5N) dialing within that community of interest along the NPA or
>> state line. But that wasn't always possible, such as in NYCity and
>> northeastern NJ.
>>
>> In the NYCity Metro area and northeastern NJ area, Panel and #1XB (and
>> later #5XB) switching was used. Step (SXS) was *NOT* used at all in
>> this metro area. There was no "routing" need for any 112+ or 1+ type
>> CAMA/DDD access code for toll in this area. If c.o.codes between 212
>> NYCity and at least the northeastern NJ portion of NJ's 201, then such
>> calls, usually "multi-message-unit" (not "strictly" toll, although
>> from the consumer's perspective these per-minute charges were indeed
>> toll), "could" have been dialed as "just" 7-digits (2L-5N). However,
>> during the later 1940s and throughout the 1950s, such calls between
>> 201 (northeastern) NJ and 212 NYC were *NOT* dialed as 2L-5N (7-d) but
>> rather (in each direction) as 11+ 2L-5N. There *WERE INDEED*
>> "duplicate" c.o.code assignments between the two states/NPAs in this
>> lower Hudson River NYCity/NJ Metro area. Such duplicate code
>> assignments most likely existed long before the idea of area codes was
>> ever thought of. By 1960, the use of "11+" in each direction for such
>> northeast-NJ <=> NYCity calls was abolished, replaced with use of the
>> actual destination 3-digit NPA codes, i.e., 201+7d for calls from
>> NYCity to northeastern NJ, and 212+7d for calls from NJ to NYCity.
>>
>> Anyhow, the 1950s era was quite a period of NPA assignments in the US
>> and Canada. A great deal of this was postwar growth and a stronger
>> economy. Some of it was the expansion of Operator Toll Dialing as
>> well as Customer originated DDD, especially with the installation of
>> automation for switching and routing calls (new XBTandems, 4A/4M XB
>> toll machines, and 5XB machines, as well as AMA/CAMA billing
>> equipment).
>>
>> In November 1951, the towns of Englewood and Teaneck NJ, were the
>> first where *customers* could actually *DIAL* toll calls to distant
>> cities, even clear across the country, although at this time, only to
>> a few limited metro areas. But it *was* a first. The customers in
>> these two towns actually used *real* area codes plus 2L-5N to dial
>> such calls in most cases. One of the exceptions was for calls to the
>> San Francisco/Oakland Bay area. The "official" area code list
>> indicated only 415 for central California. But there were the two
>> sides of the Bay, and different toll machines on each side of the Bay.
>>
>> For the Englewood NJ Customer Long Distance Dialing trials, calls to
>> Oakland (and east Bay metro area points) were reached with NPA
>> 415. However, calls to San Francisco (and west Bay and
>> north-of-the-Golden Gate points that were dialable) were reached with
>> a different 318 area code. I think that Operators dialed 415 for the
>> entire region. I think that some of this may have had to do with the
>> number of digits that could be analyzed and translated up-front in the
>> #5XB machines in Englewood and Teaneck NJ. I think that for discrete
>> routing to Oakland toll vs. San Francisco toll, the machines couldn't
>> translate all six-digits of the NPA-NNX code, but only three-digits of
>> "just" the NPA code. Thus the use of 318 indicated San Francisco
>> "up-front" while the use of 415 indicated Oakland "up-front".
>>
>> This didn't seem to matter for Operators, because they keyed into a 4A
>> XB toll machine, which was probably able to analyze/translate the full
>> six-digits of the 415+NNX code, and thus be able to route directly to
> > Oakland vs. San Francisco on those six digits 415+NNX.
>>
>> By the time full six-digit translation was extended to
>> customer-originated DDD calls, the use of 318 vs. 415 for San
>> Francisco vs. Oakland was no longer needed, thus 318 was fully
>> reclaimed for this use, with 415 being the only code for all calls to
> > the Bay area. In 1957, 318 was assigned to the split of Louisiana's
>> (only) area code 504.
>>
>> During the 1950s, many PBXes became automated and to the point where
>> individual "extensions" began to have "real" dialable 7-digit
>> (ten-digit) "public" telephone numbers. Every hotel or hospital room,
>> or office desk, etc. had a unique public/dialable telephone
>> number. Mobile (IMTS) and paging was becoming available and popular,
>> to where the mobile devices also had dialable "POTS" (NANP) telephone
>> numbers. Manual service was becoming automated and getting dialable
>> c.o.codes in many rural areas, and even in cities where manual service
>> still existed. There were possibly the beginnings of tele-fax, as well
>> as dial-up data connections over the regular DDD or local-dial
>> telephone network.
>>
>> The US possessions of Alaska and Hawaii were about to become states,
>> and in 1957 were assigned area codes. Even the Caribbean area (both
>> the US possessions of Puerto Rico and the US Virgin Islands, as well
>> as the Dominican Republic, the "British" West Indies, and possibly
>> even other parts of the French and Dutch Caribbean and maybe even
>> pre-Castro Cuba ... was assigned an Area Code (809) in 1958. However,
>> it wouldn't be until the mid/late 1960s and into the 1970s (and even
>> later) when all of these non-CONUS points could begin to be *directly
>> dialed* by customers in the US and Canada, without the need for
>> operator intervention (at least for non-coin-station-sent-paid calls).
>>
>> With the exception of the *temporary* use of 318 for calling to San
>> Francisco (from Englewood/Teaneck NJ in the customer toll dialing
>> trials starting Nov. 1951), there were *THIRTY-FOUR* new area codes
>> assigned and activated for the US, Canada, Caribbean, between 1948 and
>> 1962.
>>
>> I seem to think that around 1960, it was planned to extend Alberta's
>> 403 area code to include (Canadian National's) Yukon and
>> southern/western Northwest Territories. Customer *dial* service with
>> NPA 403 to the YT/NWT didn't begin until around 1972 though. New
>> telephone service in the eastern/Arctic NWT began in the 1960s/70s,
>> provided by Bell Canada. Eventually, NPA 819 (one of the three NPA
>> codes for Quebec) was "extended" to include this part of the NWT,
>> circa Fall 1975.
>>
>> In 1962/63, the northwest border towns of Mexico were (temporarily)
>> incorporated into the NANP/DDD network, many of these communities
>> actually received their *dialtone* from a Bell telco (or Contel of the
>> West) in the United States, or else if they provided their own
>> dialtone, their toll homings were on an AT&T (or BOC -- Pacific Tel or
>> Mountain States Tel) toll switch in the US. This was the (temporary)
>> use of Area Code 903 for (the northwest border towns of) Mexico. AT&T
>> and/or Pacific Telephone also had a financial interest in Telefonica
>> Fronteriza. Telefonos de Mexico was *NOT* the telco in these
>> northwestern Mexican border towns!
>>
>> In 1980, there were changes where the Mexican Government took over the
>> telephone service in these towns and put them into Telefonos de
>> Noroeste, which was made a subsidiary of the Mexican Government's
>> TelMex. Eventually, the "homings" or dialtone for these towns was
>> provided by *MEXICO*, and these towns were being re-numbered to
>> conform with Mexico (+52) dialing/numbering, under Mexico's 6NXX city
>> codes in other TelMex parts of northwest Mexico. 903 was reclaimed,
>> and instead, 70-6 was assigned, the '6' being the third digit of the
>> NANP area code, but also the first digit of the Mexican
>> "national/domestic" telephone number in that overall part of Mexico.
>>
>> By 1970, AT&T assigned 90-5 for future customer use to dial Mexico
>> City and surrounding communities. The +52 Mexican city-code for Mexico
> > City was '5', and surrounding communities had city codes of the 59X
>> form. The '5' in 90-5 did the same "double duty" that the '6' in 70-6
>> would do starting ten years later.
>>
>> The use of 70-6 and 90-5 for reaching *limited* parts of Mexico from
>> the US and Canada was eliminated in Feb. 1991, since most US/Canadian
> > customers had the capability of 011+/01+ International/Overseas
>> access. With the exception of the northwestern 903 Mexican border
>> towns in the 1960s/70s, and to a lesser extent in the 1980s, Mexico
>> was *NOT* part of the NANP (+1), but has been its *OWN* ITU-assigned
>> country-code +52.
>>
>> As for the POTS area codes of the US and Canada itself, there were
>> those *thirty-four* new area codes assigned between 1948 and 1962. By
>> the mid-1950s, AT&T was becoming concerned at the "rate" of new area
>> codes being assigned and activated. There were several telco planning
>> meetings that took place in the second half of the decade, and it was
>> ultimately decided to go from 2L-5N (exchange name/letters) over to
>> strictly 7-d ANC (All Number Calling). This would allow potential use
>> of NN0 codes for c.o.codes (the third-digit '0' in c.o.codes was
>> "discouraged" during the "exchange name" days because of confusion
>> with the letter 'O' on the numeral '6', but there were still some NN0
>> codes with an exchange name with letters on the 'NN' first two digits,
>> especially in the Los Angeles metro area back in the 1920s/30s!), as
>> well as "POTS" use of 55X, 57X, 95X and 97X c.o.codes, which were
>> mostly unused during the EXchange NAme days, because of difficulty in
>> coming up with two letters to form a real use-able/pronounce-able/
>> easy-to-spell word/name from the letters J/K/L on the 5, P/R/S on the
>> 7, W/X/Y on the 9. Those codes were mostly used for internal telco
>> test purposes in the EXchange NAme days, and even today are still
>> commonly used for special telco purposes, or special functions,
>> although there are now POTS c.o.codes as well of the 55X, 57X, 95X,
>> 97X formats.
>>
>> "ANC" was also going to allow expansion to N0X/N1X format *CENTRAL
>> OFFICE* codes, expected for Los Angeles (NPA 213) by the early 1970s
>> (which did take effect as scheduled), and for New York City (NPA 212)
>> by the mid-1970s (and took effect around 1981). It would also allow
>> NNX format NPA codes to be introduced, anticipated by 1995-2000, and
>> eventually took effect in Jan. 1995, more-or-less on schedule.
>>
>> But with better control over number resources, after the splits of
>> 1962, and except for special code assignements of the 1960s/70s, there
>> were only TWO more "POTS" NPA splits for the remainder of the 1960s,
>> and throughout the 1970s ...
>>
>> In 1965, 305 in eastern/northern Florida split, with 904 for the
>> panhandle and other parts of north-central and northeastern Florida.
>>
>> In 1973, 703 in Virginia (its only NPA code as of 1947) was split,
>> with 804 for southeastern Virginia.
>>
>> It wasn't until almost ten-years-later, when 714 CA split off 619
>> (effective Nov. 1982), and 713 TX split off 409 (effective March
>> 1983).
>>
>> The breakup of the Bell System officially took effect on
>> 01-January-1984. In 1984, there were two area code splits, even with
>> N0X/N1X format c.o.codes, both 213 Los Angeles and 212 New York City
>> needed to split. 213 split off 818 for the northern part of the
>> city/metro area ... and 212 split off 718 for Brooklyn/Queens/Staten
>> Island, with Manhattan (and initially) Bronx retaining 212. (Bronx was
>> transferred from 212 to 718 during 1992/93).
>>
>> There were a few more area codes splits in the late 1980s, three in
>> 1988 (303/719 CO in March, 305/407 FL in April, 617/508 MA in July),
>> and one in 1989 when Chicago, which had already gone to N0X/N1X
>> c.o.codes, eventually needed to split, the city itself retaining 312,
>> with the suburbs splitting off to 708.
>>
>> The 1990-94 timeframe had thirteen new NPA codes, but even that wasn't
>> a huge number. However, for "POTS" format area codes, it "exhausted"
>> the supply of "traditional" style codes. But it was planned that 1995
> > would probably be the year that new format NNX codes, for a
>> generalized overall NXX format, would begin to be used.
>>
>> In the early 1990s timeframe, there was the first "overlay" area code,
>> 917 overlaying all of NYC (both 212 and 718), initially for new
>> wireless services, but ultimately for landline service as
> > well. Actually, the original 1991 Bellcore ILs for the 917 overlay to
>> 212/718 *did* indicate that the ultimate intent was for 917 to be
>> "all/full" services and not "just" wireless.
>>
>> There were still several "special function" area codes assigned
>> throughout the 1970s/80s/early 90s, such as 700, 710, the swap of 610
>> for 600 in Canada, 456, 500, etc. but these were just for special
>> purposes and not geographic/POTS service.
>>
>> The 1995-2001 timeframe saw an *EXPLOSION* in the number of new area
>> codes assigned and activated, now that the NANP was using new NNX
>> format area codes (generalized NXX for "all" codes), for a NANP
>> ten-digit number format of NXX-NXX-xxxx. Some of it was because of
>> more cellular service, some because of emerging and/or *potential*
>> CLECs.
>>
>> The 809 Caribbean/Bermuda area broke off 18 new area codes for a total
>> of 19 codes (including 809 retained by (only) the Dominican
>> Republic). This took effect in a staggered implementation, from
>> 1995-99.
>>
>> In Fall 1997, the Yukon and Northwest Territories (and future Nunavut
>> Territory politically/jurisdicationally splitting off from NWT) in
>> northern Canada, which had been "sharing" from *two* area codes
>> assigned to lower provinces (403 in Alberta for YT and
>> southern/western NWT; 819 as one of three codes in Quebec for
>> eastern/Arctic NWT), now split off into its own new SINGLE area code
>> of 867.
>>
>> Two U.S. territories or possessions in the Pacific, Guam (+671) and
>> the Northern Mariana Islands/ Saipan/etc. (+670) became incorporated
>> into the NANP in Summer 1997. The numerics of their (three-digit) ITU
>> assigned Country Code was migrated to their *AREA* (NPA) code within
>> +1/NANP.
>>
>> There were two more overlays, which from the beginning were full
>> service overlays, in 1997. Maryland's two area codes were each
>> overlaid.
>>
>> 1997 was the fiftieth anniversary of the NANP "as we have known it as
>> it has evolved/developed", but 1997 was also the year that saw the
>> *MOST* number of new area codes activated in a single calendar year, a
>> total of 43 new codes!
>>
>> When divestiture happened, effective 1984, the overall administration
>> of the NANP and assignment of area codes was transferred from AT&T
>> over to the new Bellcore organization, which was spun out of the old
>> AT&T/Bell System. The name of this administering organization within
>> Bellcore was first called the "Numbering and Dialing Plan Group", but
>> was later changed to NANPA, the North American Numbering Plan
>> *Administration".
>>
>> Bellcore was owned 1/7th each by each of the seven regional Bell
>> holding corporations which were carved out of the old Bell
>> System. When competition in the local telco arena was becoming more
>> and more apparant (actually even in the later 1980s, there was
>> competition in cellular, between a BOC wireless subsidiary against a
>> competitive Radio Common Carrier), there appeared to be a "conflict of
>> interest" with Bellcore also being the NANPA. There was also more
>> regulatory oversight over the numbering plan as well. And there was
>> the 1996 Telecom Act.
>>
>> It was decided that Bellcore would divest itself of the NANPA
>> functions, to be turned over to a non-governmental impartial
>> third-party entity. There were several hearings and such over at
>> least five years time, and by 1998, Lockheed-Martin took over the
>> NANPA functions from Bellcore. Also, Bellcore was about to be sold by
>> the regional Bell holding corporations over to a new owner, SAIC, and
>> the name of Bellcore was changed to Telcordia in 1999.
>>
>> Also, Lockheed-Martin announced at the end of 1998, just less than a
>> year of handling the NANPA, that it wanted "out" of numbering. A year
>> later, in late 1999, just before 2000, a new entity named "Neustar"
> > took over the NANPA functions.
>>
>> When the NANPA became separate from Bellcore, even local c.o.code
>> assignments (in the US) were transferred from the BOCs over to (LM)
>> NANPA. In Canada, the incumbent local telcos turned over local
>> c.o.code administration over to SAIC-held "CNA" (Canadian Numbering
> > Adminstration) beginning in 1998.
>>
>> Starting in 1998 were a few more overlays, and there have been
>> overlays ever since. This prevents the need for a "two stage" holding
>> of c.o.codes in existance during an "overlap" period under both the
>> old and new area codes for the permissive dial period. And existing
>> customers do NOT have to change the area code part of their already
>> existing ten-digit telephone number. The US, Canada, and even Puerto
>> Rico (US teritory) in the Caribbean have had some overlays.
>>
>> With the explosion of area code assignments, there was concern about
>> the possible premature exhaust of the NANP ten-digit format "itself"
>> (supply of assignable area codes). There was supposed to be the
>> evolution of "portability" for those who were changing from one local
>> telco to another in a competitive environment, where they could KEEP
>> the same number, and there was also the concept of assigning blocks of
>> assignable numbers in blocks of 1,000 instead of 10,000. This began to
>> happen more and more by 2000, and with OTHER factors involved as well,
>> has actually caused a SIGNIFICANT DOWNTURN in the number of new area
>> codes! :)
>>
>> There were only eight new area codes in calendar year 2002, last year.
>>
>> This year, 2003, there are only THREE new area codes, all
>> co-incidentally within the Republic of Texas.
>>
>> The only "known" new area code for 2004 is 684 for the US Pacific
>> territory of American Samoa, in where it migrates from +684 to +1-684,
>> similar to Guam and the Northern Mariana Islands/Saipan in 1997.
>> Permissive/Parallel dialing for American Samoa's new situation is
>> expected to begin in October 2004, a year from now.
>>
>> (The country of Guyana, +592, did make a request to join the NANP,
>> back in 1999/2000, this is a "British" or former British location on
>> the northern coast of South America, with a community-of-interest with
>> the "British" Caribbean/West Indies; I personally don't think that
>> allowing +592 Guyana or even +501 Belize, into the NANP, would have
>> caused premature exhaust, but the FCC and the CRTC both gave Guyana
>> "thumbs down" at this time on becoming part of the NANP).
>>
>> Many states have actually called off area code implementation or even
>> relief planning. California has been able to hold off any new area
>> codes since Summer 1999. Some planned area code overlays in Canada
>> keep getting pushed further and further into the future (but with
>> planned specific future dates).
>>
>> I have recently posted to TELECOM Digest some articles on the currently
>> viewed situation of future area codes, in more detail.
>>
>> It actually does seem to look more and more like the 1980s (or even
>> 1960s/70s) regarding new area codes, as there are FAR fewer new codes
>> assigned/activated each year than in the past years of the late 1990s
>> thru 2001.
>>
>> There is a lot more I could say here on the history and current/future
>> developement of the NANP and the DDD network. Much of it has already
>> been said over and over by me *AND* others who are all well known.
>>
>> So I will close here, but remember that Wednesday 22-October-2003,
>> could be said to be the 56th Anniversary of the NANP "as we have known
>> it" and "as it has actually developed and evolved", since the first
>> "known" memo identifying the original 86 area codes that "took" was
>> issued by AT&T some 56 years ago, on 22-October-1947.
>>
>>
>> Mark J. Cuccia
>> mcuccia (at) tulane (dot) edu
>> New Orleans LA USA
>> +1 504 UNiversity 5-5954 (WORK)
>> +1 504 CHestnut 1-2497 (HOME/voicmail)
>>
>> NWORLASKDS0 (BellSouth #5ESS Cl.5 Local "Seabrook" 504-24x-)
>> NWORLAIYCM3 (BellSouth-Mobility Ericsson Cellular-MTSO NOL)
>> NWORLAMT01T (BellSouth DMS-100 "Metairie" Tndm; Cellular routes thru)
>> NWORLAMA0GT (BellSouth DMS-100/200 inTRA-LATA/fg.B-C-D Tndm "Main" 504+)
> > NWORLAMA20T (BellSouth DMS-200 TOPS:inLATA Opr.Svc.Tndm "Main" 504+053+)
>> NWORLAMA04T (AT&T #4ESS Class-2 Toll 060-T / 504-2T "Main" 504+)
>> JCSNMSPS06T (AT&T #5ESS OSPS:Operator-Services-Tandem 601-0T 601+121)
>> JCSNMSPS14T (AT&T #4ESS Class-3 Toll 040-T / 601-2T; OSPS routes thru)
> > NWORLAELH01 (Tulane U PBX NEC-2400 broken down to the following 504-NXXes
>> and thousands-blocks: 865-4/5/6xxx, 862-3/8xxx, 314-2/7xxx, 247-1xxx)
>> NWORLACADS0 (BellSo.DMS-100 Cl.5 Lcl "Carrollton" 504-86x;PBX 'homes' on)
>> =========================================================
>>
>> [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: My sincere thanks to Mark Cuccia for
>> this very interesting historical account of the telephone area code
>> numbering system, and how it evolved. In addition to this going out
>> to readers early on Wednesday, it will also be archived in the special
>> reports section of the archives and the history area of the archives.
>> PAT]
>> ------------------------------
>>
>> TELECOM Digest is an electronic journal devoted mostly but not
>> exclusively to telecommunications topics. It is circulated anywhere
>> there is email, in addition to various telecom forums on a variety of
>> networks such as Compuserve and America On Line, and other forums. It
>> is also gatewayed to Usenet where it appears as the moderated
>> newsgroup 'comp.dcom.telecom'.
>>
>> TELECOM Digest is a not-for-profit, mostly non-commercial educational
>> service offered to the Internet by Patrick Townson. All the contents
>> of the Digest are compilation-copyrighted. You may reprint articles in
>> some other media on an occasional basis, but please attribute my work
>> and that of the original author.
>>
>> Contact information: Patrick Townson/TELECOM Digest
>> Post Office Box 50
>> Independence, KS 67301
>> Phone: 620-330-6774
>> Fax 1: 775-255-9970
>> Fax 2: 775-306-8390
>> Fax 3: 775-642-0603
>> Fax 4: 530-309-7234
>> Email: [email protected]
>>
>>
>> Subscribe: [email protected]
>> Unsubscribe:[email protected]
>>
>> This Digest is the oldest continuing e-journal about telecomm-
>> unications on the Internet, having been founded in August, 1981 and
>> published continuously since then. Our archives are available for
>> your review/research. We believe we are the second oldest e-zine/
>> mailing list on the internet in any category!
>>
>> URL information: http://telecom-digest.org
>>
>> Anonymous FTP: mirror.lcs.mit.edu/telecom-archives/archives/
>> (or use our mirror site: ftp.epix.net/pub/telecom-archives)
>>
>> Email <==> FTP: [email protected]
>>
>> Send a simple, one line note to that automated address for
>> a help file on how to use the automatic retrieval system
>> for archives files. You can get desired files in email.
>>
>> *************************************************************************
>> * TELECOM Digest is partially funded by a grant from *
>> * Judith Oppenheimer, President of ICB Inc. and purveyor of accurate *
>> * 800 & Dot Com News, Intelligence, Analysis, and Consulting. *
>> * http://ICBTollFree.com, http://1800TheExpert.com *
>> * Views expressed herein should not be construed as representing *
>> * views of Judith Oppenheimer or ICB Inc. *
>> *************************************************************************
>>
>> ICB Toll Free News. Contact information is not sold, rented or leased.
>>
>> One click a day feeds a person a meal. Go to http://www.thehungersite.com
>>
>> Copyright 2003 ICB, Inc. and TELECOM Digest. All rights reserved.
>> Our attorney is Bill Levant, of Blue Bell, PA.
>>
>> In addition, gifts from Mike Sandman, Chicago's Telecom Expert
>> have enabled me to replace some obsolete computer equipment and
>> enter the 21st century sort of on schedule. His mail order
>> telephone parts/supplies service based in the Chicago area has
> > been widely recognized by Digest readers as a reliable and very
>> inexpensive source of telecom-related equipment. Please request
>> a free catalog today at http://www.sandman.com
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------
> >
>> Finally, the Digest is funded by gifts from generous readers such as
>> yourself who provide funding in amounts deemed appropriate. Your help
>> is important and appreciated. A suggested donation of fifty dollars
>> per year per reader is considered appropriate. See our address above.
>> Please make at least a single donation to cover the cost of processing
>> your name to the mailing list. If you donate at least fifty dollars
>> per year we will send you our two-CD set of the entire Telecom
>> Archives; this is every word published in this Digest since our
>> beginning in 1981.
>>
>> All opinions expressed herein are deemed to be those of the
>> author. Any organizations listed are for identification purposes only
>> and messages should not be considered any official expression by the
>> organization.
>>
>> End of TELECOM Digest V22 #712
>> ******************************
>>
>>