Return-Path: Received: by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.7.4/NSCS-1.0S) id SAA24129; Fri, 16 Jan 1998 18:39:09 -0500 (EST) Date: Fri, 16 Jan 1998 18:39:09 -0500 (EST) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <199801162339.SAA24129@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson Subject: TELECOM Digest V18 #11 TELECOM Digest Fri, 16 Jan 98 18:39:00 EST Volume 18 : Issue 11 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Urgent FCC Information (Andrea Fortus) Book Review: "Come to Grief", Dick Francis (Rob Slade) Re: Colorado PUC Wavering on 720 Overlay of Denver 303 (Mark J. Cuccia) Re: New MCI FCC Charge (John McHarry) AT&T Credit Calls - No VISA (David Schuetz) Re: Y2k Compliant Software Release (Tony Toews) Re: AOL Accused of Privacy Violation (Steven R. Shepherd) Re: Nevada Area Code (702) Proposal - Huh? (Daniel Rothman) Re: Nevada Area Code (702) Proposal - Huh? (Linc Madison) 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 public service systems and networks including Compuserve and America On Line. It is also gatewayed to Usenet where it appears as the moderated newsgroup 'comp.dcom.telecom'. Subscriptions are available to qualified organizations and individual readers. Write and tell us how you qualify: * telecom-request@telecom-digest.org * The Digest is edited, published and compilation-copyrighted by Patrick Townson of Skokie, Illinois USA. You can reach us by postal mail, fax or phone at: Post Office Box 4621 Skokie, IL USA 60076 Phone: 847-727-5427 Fax: 773-539-4630 ** Article submission address: editor@telecom-digest.org ** Our archives are available for your review/research. The URL is: http://telecom-digest.org They can also be accessed using anonymous ftp: ftp hyperarchive.lcs.mit.edu/telecom-archives/archives (or use our mirror site: ftp ftp.epix.net/pub/telecom-archives) A third method is the Telecom Email Information Service: Send a note to archives@telecom-digest.org to receive a help file for using this method or write me and ask for a copy of the help file for the Telecom Archives. ************************************************************************* * TELECOM Digest is partially funded by a grant from the * * International Telecommunication Union (ITU) in Geneva, Switzerland * * under the aegis of its Telecom Information Exchange Services (TIES) * * project. Views expressed herein should not be construed as represent-* * ing views of the ITU. * ************************************************************************* In addition, a gift from Mike Sandman, Chicago's Telecom Expert has 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 twenty 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. 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. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: afortus@salestar.com (Andrea Fortus) Date: Thu, 15 Jan 1998 09:51:00 -0800 Subject: Urgent FCC Information This letter is to inform you that the recent FCC decision to detariff all long distance services also eliminated the requirement for long distance carriers to provide pricing and service information to the public. If not modified, this decision will deprive U.S. consumers, particularly small-to-medium sized businesses and residential customers, access to critical information necessary to make their telecommunications carrier and service selections. The decision will make it difficult for consumers to obtain thorough and timely pricing information. Salestar is a San Francisco based telecommunications research company. Together with the Center for Communications Management Information and Tele-Tech Services, we have formed the Telecommunications Management Information Systems Coalition (the "Coalition"). The Coalition's purpose is to advocate consumers' right to view pricing and service information. The Coalition and the Utility Reform Network ("TURN"), a nonprofit organization that advocates on behalf of California's residential and small business customers of telecommunications, electric and gas services, filed a petition for further reconsideration of the FCC's decision on December 4, 1997, the deadline for filing such petitions at the FCC. The Coalition's petition may be found at Salestar's webpage at www.salestar.com. A summary of the public disclosure issue as well as a model letter of support for the Coalition's petition for further reconsideration of the elimination of the public disclosure requirement may also be found at Salestar's web page. In addition, we are mounting an aggressive campaign to rally supporters. We would like to take this opportunity to urge you to add your support to our efforts by sending a letter to the FCC stating your opposition to the elimination of the public disclosure requirement and supporting our petition for further reconsideration. For your convenience, a model letter of support may be found at www.salestar.com. Please feel free to use it as a guide in writing your own letter or forward it to other groups who my be interested in this issue. We would like all letters in support of the Coalition's petition for further reconsideration to be submitted to the FCC no later than January 20, 1998. With a strong collective effort, we feel that the FCC will take notice of our concerns and reinstate the public disclosure requirement. Thank you for your support! Andrea Fortus Salestar Telecom Analyst afortus@salestar.com 415-356-2166 ------------------------------ From: Rob Slade Organization: Vancouver Institute for Research into User Date: Thu, 15 Jan 1998 08:32:15 -0800 Subject: Book Review: "Come to Grief", Dick Francis Reply-To: rslade@sprint.ca BKCM2GRF.RVW 971003 "Come to Grief", Dick Francis, 1995, 0-515-11952-0, U$6.99 %A Dick Francis %C 200 Madison Avenue, New York, NY 10016 %D 1995 %G 0-515-11952-0 %I Ace/Berkley/Boulevard/Charter/Diamond/Jove Books %O U$6.99 +1-800-788-6262 http://www.berkley.com/berkley %P 368 %T "Come to Grief" OK, I've already admitted that I like Dick Francis, OK? But I *do* have a reason for reviewing this one as well as "Driving Force" (cf. BKDRVFRC.RVW). Yes, a *technical* reason. Two or three, actually. First, this book involves the use of cell phones, and the interception of cell phone conversations. As in "Driving Force", Francis' technical details are a mixture of good and bad. It is good to see that he is making the public more aware of the vulnerability in using cellular phones to conduct confidential or private business. (Or, as Prince Charles found out to his chagrin, pleasure.) However, in this story, the lead character is told that getting a digital cell phone, as opposed to analogue, is an automatic guarantee of security. Granted, a digital scanner is a lot harder to build than an analogue one but without the use of spread spectrum or encryption, or both, digital communications alone cannot ensure security. Second, the main character admits that he is not keen on computers, and uses them as little as is consistent with his business. Fair enough. We can, though, therefore rule out the possibility that his home computer is even moderately sophisticated, let alone running a multiuser operating system. In fact, we can probably assume that, like most people, he turns the computer off when he is not using it. So how come he can call up his home computer from the office of the bad guys, and transfer files from theirs to his? (In fact, given the lengths to which they have gone in order to secure and hide their machine, how come it even has a modem?) OK, as long as we're here, how about one more? You know how in all the movies, when the good guys get into the bad guys' office/hideout headquarters, and they discover the secret files/computer, that as soon as they put the disk with the secret data into the floppy drive the prompt "PASSWORD" appears on the screen? Yup, you guessed it. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 15 Jan 1998 14:41:13 -0600 From: Mark J. Cuccia Subject: Re: Colorado PUC Wavering on 720 Overlay of Denver 303 Adam H. Kerman wrote: > Donald M. Heiberg wrote: >> Denver customers should gird for 1st shot at 10-digit dialing >> Education campaign will begin Monday. >> that will let metro Denver residents know they can start dialing >> 303 in front of each local number, beginning Feb. 1. > Does this mean that the "1" dialling prefix never needs to be used to > dial an interLATA call? Or, is it required to dial an intraLATA > intraNPA call? > How did they arrange things so that there's no transition from > mandatory eleven-digit dialling on some calls to optional eleven-digit > dialling? I thought that couldn't be done. At least, that's what they > claim in Chicago. Metro Denver, and most likely the entire state of Colorado, has used 1+ to indicate that the remaining digits are a _toll_ call. Local calls have been dialable as _straight_ seven-digits, while toll calls, whether inTRA and inTER LATA, as well as toll calls to both home and differing NPAs, have been dialed as 1/0+ten-digits. Prior to interchangeable N0X/N1X format central-office codes in (any of) Colorado's NPA(s), which was also prior to interchangeable NNX format NPA codes in 1995, 'home' NPA toll calls in Colorado could be dialed as 1/0+seven-digits. Metro Chicago's dialing and numbering plans developed differently, as did its switch history (and local and nearby-toll billing/rate plans - Denver being a geographically large monthly unlimited flat rate plan, with Chicago being message units and/or measured rate). Metro Denver (and Colorado) have probably made sure that none of its close-by NPAs have any local c/o codes 303, 970, 719, 720. However, in Metro Chicago (which is _far_ more dense and populated) there are NXX combinations used as local central-office codes _and_ used as nearby NPA codes. I think this is also the case in metro areas of California, as well as in New York City. >> But commissioners also said they want to continue exploring >> alternatives since an estimated three million of the eight million >> numbers in the 303 area code are not being used -- although most of >> them have been assigned to companies. >> 2. Consolidating rate centers. The big supply of unused 303 numbers >> stems from traditional telephone technology, which assigns prefixes to >> specific rate centers, the geographic point of measuring and billing >> long-distance calls. >> Blocks of 10,000 numbers at a time are allotted, which means that each >> new telephone company wanting to serve all of 303 has a block in each >> of 42 rate centers, or 420,000 numbers. > This is ridiculous. "Rate center" is an artificial concept, > particularly for wireless carriers. You can't make an outgoing call on > a pager, last time I looked. And, with respect to a cell phone, it > won't affect long-distance rating if there's only one rate center in > Denver, and every third or fourth rate center is used in the suburbs. > No one at all would be affected if two thirds of the rate centers were > eliminated for a wireless carrier attempting to cover all of 303, and > the currently-held NPA-NXX combinations were reassigned to remaining > rate centers. >> As a side benefit, that could lead to a bigger local calling area. >> That would mean higher monthly bills for all customers. > How is this possible? Ratecenters are tariffed items. While most inTER-LATA carriers are offering 'flat-rate-per-minute' toll plans, inTRA-LATA toll calls (much of which will still be handled by USWest, even with the presence of CLECs) are calls _between_ particular ratecenters. To comply with the _state_ tariffs for inTRA-state calls (also inTRA-LATA), a CLEC will need at least one NXX central-office code for each ratecenter where it wants to provide service. A customer who spends much of his time in a particular town some distance outside of metro Denver, and a toll call to/from Denver, wants a pager or cellular phone, but wants it to be a local call from the area where he is going to be spending most of his time. The central-office code prefix for his wireless device will need to be based in his local ratecenter. In addition to cellular/paging/mobile/wireless services, we now have the CLECs. Their 'basic' local calling areas will need to conform to that of the incumbent LEC(s), although they can provide enhanced or optional local calling plans. To conform with 'basic' local calling of the incumbent LEC, each ratecenter that the new CLEC provides service in will need at least one local NXX c/o code. Consolidating ratecenters has been done in some areas, such as Phoenix AZ, Minneapolis-St.Paul MN, and elsewhere. In these cases, there had been individual ratecenters which at one time might have been _toll_ between each other, but _over_time_ (thirty to forty years) had evolved to all become local (EAS - Extended Area Service) to/from each other. When a CLEC would apply for NXX c/o codes for services, it would need codes for numerous ratecenters. By consolidating the ratecenters into one or only a handful, there are fewer NXX c/o codes that the CLEC would need assigned, depending of course on how many customers it would serve overall. But to consolidate a large number of ratecenters over a large geographic area into a single ratecenter, by changing short-haul inTRA-LATA and tariffed _toll_, into a _local_ call could mean a "loss of revenue" for USWest and other LECs. That's why customers would have a higher monthly telephone bill. But it would still be a flat-rate for unlimited calling within this larger geographic region, albeit a higher monthly flat-rate. The big urban areas with forced measured-rate or message-units, in California, the Midwest, and the Northeast, have numerous ratecenters for short-haul or instate calling. They are called "zones" and are frequently indicated as such in the front of the local directory, as well as in state tariff filings and telco/Bellcore rating/routing documents. The rate centers are usually called things like " zone 1", " zone 2", etc. and then " zone 1", " zone 2", etc. Each city zone and suburban zone also has its own V&H co-ordinate for short-haul toll call billing/rating. But for long-haul interLATA and/or interstate calling, when still using traditional time and distance based billing plans, there is a V&H co-ordinate applied to the city 'itself', regardless of which 'zone' where the call originated or terminated. MARK_J._CUCCIA__PHONE/WRITE/WIRE/CABLE:__HOME:__(USA)__Tel:_CHestnut-1-2497 WORK:__mcuccia@mailhost.tcs.tulane.edu|4710-Wright-Road|__(+1-504-241-2497) Tel:UNiversity-5-5954(+1-504-865-5954)|New-Orleans-28__|fwds-on-no-answr-to Fax:UNiversity-5-5917(+1-504-865-5917)|Louisiana(70128)|cellular/voicemail- ------------------------------ From: mcharry@erols.com (John McHarry) Subject: Re: New MCI FCC Charge Date: Fri, 16 Jan 1998 00:27:46 GMT Organization: Erol's Internet Services On Wed, 14 Jan 1998 23:43:11 -0500, Jack Decker wrote: > I got a bill for long distance usage on my residence line from MCI > today. ... > A notation on the bill offers this explanation: > The FCC is now requiring MCI and all other long distance companies to > pay a fee to the local phone companies based on the number of lines > subscribed to each carrier for originating and terminating your long > distance calls. As a result, MCI will pass along a subscriber fee to > each usage customer." ... > But after that, I got to wondering -- if the carriers are charged > based on number of lines subscribed, and my line isn't subscribed to > MCI (nor to any other carrier), then why should I be paying MCI this > fee? ... Actually, it is even worse. Your local carrier will charge you for your non PICed line. (MCI should not.) I think what is going on is a lowering of the LEC's skim off of the long distance charges (IXCs pay more to the LECs to originate and terminate a call than it costs them to carry it across the country.) Since this was a local service subsidy (or so they say) it is being replaced with per user charges. The government doesn't get any of it. The LEC pockets the whole wad. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 15 Jan 1998 12:09:36 EST From: David Schuetz Subject: AT&T Credit Calls - No VISA After arriving late in a hotel last night, I tried calling home but had forgotten my MCI calling card. So, I tried the hotel's AT&T Credit Card option. I punched in my "Major" credit card number (Citibank Visa), only to get a couple "invalid card number" errors and eventually an operator. I read her my number aloud, and she told me that they wouldn't take that visa card. Thinking it was a problem with the card, I asked why, and she said that "AT&T doesn't take all Visa cards, just certain ones." She told me that a while back they'd dropped all Visa, and now they're accepting (she thought) at least the AT&T Universal cards. I told her that if AT&T didn't want my money, that was fine with me, and made the call a different way. This raises (to me) two questions. * Why the heck would they want to do this? Seems pretty stupid to me (they lost my business). * Can they even do this? I thought Visa was Visa ("It's everywhere you want to be"). If a retail outlet puts a visa logo in their window, don't they have to take *ALL* Visa cards? (provided they're legit/current/etc.) I'm wondering if I should complain to the FCC, to Visa proper, or to Citibank, or if this is "accepted practice" and I should just live with it. david. ['splain to me again why we *want* AT&T providing local service? Will they refuse checks from my bank, because it's not their favorite bank? Seems like a natural extension of the pick-and-choose visa thing...] [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: If a merchant takes some VISA cards, he has to take all VISA cards (assuming sales authorization approval, etc). This sounds to me like a continuation of the redlining AT&T does with regards credit cards (and its own calling card) from payphones in 'bad' neighborhoods in inner-city areas. For a long time AT&T has illegally refused connections (or actually, improperly refused an extension of credit) based purely on the location of the caller and the place he was calling. As an example, you can be in Skokie or Winnetka, IL (where I am) and use a payphone with a credit card or a telco calling card to call any nice, English-speaking country in the world, i.e. Australia, the UK, etc. Now on the other hand, if you go a few miles south into Chicago, and attempt to use the very same calling/credit card to call, let's say, Israel, India, Iran, or some third-world country -- and immigrants to Chicago would quite likely be from one of those places -- the call via a payphone will be refused. That's because AT&T stereotypes those people as likely to be dishonest or deadbeats. They claim historical evidence for this in their records. You have to use a private phone to call those countries so that there can be some absolute recourse for billing and collection. It is very likely that something about your call triggered an alarm to them. It might be the hotel where you were at has had a high fraud rate. It might be the particular VISA series. It could have been the time of day, or the destination point. Or it might have been an operator acting ignorant. The cute part is how the operators are instructed to lie to the customer about it. The operator is NEVER to say there is a strong possibility you are making a fraud call. She is NEVER to say 'there is a problem with calls from your ethnic neighborhood in Chicago to (whatever) country and AT&T has a hard time collecting payment.' Saying those things could easily lead to a discrimination lawsuit, etc. So instead, the operator has a few lies she is instructed to say, which ninety percent of the time or so will shag away the customer with no further ado. The three most common are: 1) The AT&T calling card is not accepted in (whatever) country. 2) The authorization system (to get approval for the charge) is down right now; no way to handle the call. 3) AT&T does not accept that particular type of VISA/MC/Amex. If you answer back to (1) saying this is a SENT PAID call and the method of payment is of no concern to the foreign telco, sometimes the operator will 'accidentally' hit the release key and dump your call. Other times she may very haughtily refer you to a supervisor who you spend ten minutes waiting on hold for if she answers at all. If you answer (2) saying the initial charge for the call is under the 'floor limit' and that normally all that happens at first is verifying the check-digit, with approval obtained ONLY after the call reaches a certain dollar-amount, you'll probably get the same response as (1). If you persevere and insist on getting a supevisor on the line and keep working your way up the ranks past the supervisor to the GCO (group chief operator) or whatever they call the person in that position these days, if your call is international, you will probably eventually reach someone at the Pittsburgh IOC who may or may not decide to manually override the computer block on your call/method of payment and put the call through. Most customers of course will not wait that long. They'll give up long before that, which is the idea. AT&T claims its behavior is legal; it claims it is not discrim- ating on the basis of national origin, area of residence, etc. It is not likely that an inner-city resident of Chicago trying to call his homeland from a payphone at the corner liquor store is ever going to be in any position to challenge the company. PAT] ------------------------------ From: ttoews@telusplanet.net (Tony Toews) Subject: Re: Y2k compliant software release Date: Thu, 15 Jan 1998 18:14:58 GMT Organization: TELUS Communications Inc. john.kuzemka!@nt.com (John Kuzemka) wrote: Thanks to the original poster for including the c.s.y2k newsgroup in the posting. I added comp.dcom.telecom as well. >> Does anyone know what release of DMS100 software >> will be ready for the year 2000? > NA00008 is the Y2K compliant SW load So what about the rest of the Nortel line. I have no idea what the DMS100 is. I'm concerned about the switches in the telco office as well as the ones in business. It's my understanding that the Nortel software is Y2K complaint. Is this correct? Do the telcos and others have access to your source code? This is it possible they've made changes which must be merged into your new source? What about links to your competitors switches for the purposes of handing off calls and exchanging billing information? BTW someone at my local telco, Telus in Alberta, has indicated that the Nortel switches are fine. However some of your competitors switches they were unsure about. Needless to say I don't expect you to comment on competitors but more the general nature of the interconnections. For example, if my telco is unable to verify that they can exchange such information with other telco's, be they in North America or overseas, I won't be able to make calls to that country. Or will I be able to make the calls, because then I pay for the call here but I will be unable to recieve calls because my telco don't know if they will get paid by the telco at the other end? Thanks, Tony Toews, Independent Computer Consultant The Year 2000 crisis: Will my parents or your grand parents still be receiving their pension in January, 2000? See www.granite.ab.ca/year2000 for more info. Microsoft Access Hints, Tips & Accounting Systems at www.granite.ab.ca/accsmstr.htm ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 15 Jan 1998 11:27:27 EST From: Steven R. Shepherd Subject: Re: AOL Accused of Privacy Violation Although legally/morally (if AOL has morals, which I highly doubt), AOL should not have given this information to the officials, the information that they gave was freely submitted by McVeigh to AOL to be placed in his "Profile" which ANYONE with an AOL account can obtain. Seeing that this was public (for AOL users) information, they were wrong morally/ethically but I doubt legally. If however, McVeigh did not choose to have a personal profile on AOL, or put a fake name/location, etc. in it and AOL told the officials the TRUE information (which was not the case) then there would be the legal issue. I think it's pretty sad that the military goes "gay hunting" through the Internet to find persons violating the vague and IMHO unconstitutional "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy. S t e v e n R. S h e p h e r d CyberGate Internet Technologies | ICQ: 1412432 An ACSI Company | NetDudeFL @ EFnet Field Engineer | E-Mail: steven@gate.net (800)NET-GATE/(954)429-8065 | 9542595004@alphapage.airtouch.com [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: His online profile, as I understand it, contained only references to his sexual interests; it said nothing about a last name or place of residence. There were no specifics given in the profile. PAT] ------------------------------ From: Daniel Rothman Reply-To: drothman@geocities.com Organization: Global One Global Data Network Engineering (GDNE) Subject: Re: Nevada Area Code (702) Proposal - Huh? Date: Thu, 15 Jan 1998 18:25:30 GMT NYC has overlaid area codes - 202, 718, 917. I'm not exactly sure how the EO routing works, but the feature is in use. daniel rothman [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: 917 is for pagers and cell phones and it is overlaid on 212. However 212 and 718 are separate and distinct areas, for Manhattan versus the other boroughs of New York. PAT] ------------------------------ From: Telecom@LincMad.NOSPAM (Linc Madison) Subject: Re: Nevada Area Code (702) Proposal - Huh? Date: Thu, 15 Jan 1998 02:26:28 -0800 Organization: LincMad Consulting; change NOSPAM to COM In article , barnaby@barnaby.net (Richard Barnaby) wrote: > Just looking at a newspaper clipping discussing a new area code for > Nevada. Among other propositions, the two major ones seem to be: > Propostion A: > Let Clark County (Las Vegas) have the existing 702, and the rest of > the state have the new number. > Proposition B: > Let everyone who already has 702 keep it, and let the "new folks" get > the new one. > I had always *assumed* from looking at area code maps, etc that area > codes do not overlay each other. I mean what business *wouldn't* like > to keep their investment in stationery, etc. > Any NANP mavens know if there is any precedent for overlaid area > codes? The only full-fledged overlays currently in effect are the two in Maryland that started June 1st, and the brand new one in the Atlanta area. Area code 301/240: Maryland, southern and western, incl. D.C. suburbs Area code 410/443: Maryland, northern and eastern, incl. Baltimore Area code 404/770/678: Georgia, Atlanta metro area Area code 917 in New York City is an overlay of both 212 and 718, but is used mostly for wireless customers. There have been many others planned and cancelled, in Chicago, Los Angeles, Houston, Dallas, and Pittsburgh; and several others proposed. However, New York City is planning to overlay 212 later this year and 718 next year, and Florida is planning overlays for Miami and Tampa Bay. Texas is discussing overlays in the Houston and Dallas areas. The fact that several of these areas have recently undergone splits has added impetus to the drive to move to overlays. Among the obstacles to overlays: * With the exception of the "grandfathering" of 917, overlays that differentiate between wireless and wireline customers are not allowed under current FCC rulings. The Chicago overlay was to be wireless-only, but it was shot down by state and federal regulators. Several states have made noises about revisiting the issue, but none has done so with any seriousness. * The new competing local carriers have felt that they would be unfairly disadvantaged by an overlay, since they expect that a much higher proportion of their customers would have numbers in the new, unfamiliar area code, while the incumbent would have mostly the old, familiar code. As a result, the FCC has ordered that in all overlay situations, all local calls must be dialed with the area code, even if it is the same. People seem to go apoplectic at the thought of dialing 10 or 11 digits for every local call. The competitive disadvantage issue surfaces even more strongly in the resistance that the CLECs give to overlay proposals. Local Number Portability, allowing customers to keep their numbers when they change local providers, will answer this charge, as will a scheme that is planned for New York City. In order to allow CLECs an equal shot at giving brand new customers numbers in the old area code, all numbers that go out of service will be returned to a common pool, from which all carriers will be able to draw. As we begin the next century, area code splits will occur less and less often, and overlays more and more often. Also, industry projections indicate that the entire U.S. will go to mandatory full-number dialing (all 10 digits, even on local calls in the same area code) within the next 10 years, give or take a couple. ** Do not send me unsolicited commercial e-mail spam of any kind ** Linc Madison * San Francisco, California * Telecom@LincMad-com URL:< http://www.lincmad.com > * North American Area Codes & Splits >> NOTE: if you autoreply, you must change "NOSPAM" to "com" << ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V18 #11 *****************************