Hi Sammy, 
        On 23 Jul'97, at 08:54, in a message to All , you wrote: 
 SF> What does everybody think of this
 SF> proposal? I don't like it. 646 is a
 SF> number for O HI O , not midtown
 SF> Manhattan, and 347 is for a computer.
 SF>            6 4  6                              DIR
 SF> What they want to do is all wrong. I
 SF> think first, the 718 split should
 SF> be postponed as long as possible. Not
 SF> only is 347 an odd area code - at
 SF> least now it still is, but this gives
 SF> people a lot of trouble in seeking
 SF> Directory assistance. You won't know what
 SF> area code someplace is. Maybe
 SF> we are headed in that direction, but if
 SF> we postpone it, maybe we can
 SF> figure a way out and the transition certainly will be easier.
 SF> More important even, people will start to
 SF> have to remember 10 digits
 SF> and not 7, because the first three won't be so automatic anymore.
 SF> We are at the point where people at least
 SF> know the are code 718 very
 SF> well, like 212, but you can get too many and the boundaries are not
 SF> obvious and the number not even like an area code.
 SF> I think just like we use 917 for beepers
 SF> and pagers, perhaps 917 could
 SF> be split early, and numbers for faxes and
 SF> other special numbers could be
 SF> added to it. What you want at least is
 SF> that numbers that people call
 SF> personally, that they remember, should be
 SF> 212 or 718 and numbers that
 SF> are dialed by machines, or that have to written down before being
 SF> dialed, that nobody tries to remember, like fax numbers, can be the
 SF> other codes.
 SF> It seems like the proposals are that
 SF> either A) new numbers be assigned
 SF> the new area code or B) the 212 and later
 SF> 718 area codes be split. I
 SF> have a differnt idea. Every location -
 SF> household or place of business -
 SF> should be entitled to at least 1 - maybe we can do 2 especially if
 SF> someone is charged for others - it can be
 SF> a sort of voluntary fee that
 SF> can actually lowrr rates for others -
 SF> every location be entitled to at
 SF> least 212 or 718 number (as the case may
 SF> be) And other numbers after
 SF> that will be 917 or 646 or 347 or
 SF> whatever - because I am sure they'll
 SF> be other area codes after that. I think we can manage that. Perhaps
 SF> phones in cars or cellular phones might be an exception, as now in
 SF> Manhattan. In addition to the one number
 SF> - or possibkly two, a person
 SF> could buy more and also could get a
 SF> discount on their phone rate of they
 SF> were willing to take another area code
 SF> for the first. People who only
 SF> used a phone to make calls, or who wanted 
 SF> a semi-unlisted number would 
 SF> readily volunteer phone lines for the bad 
 SF> area codes. And with at least 
 SF> one number 212, and the opportunity to pay for more, business cards
 SF> would not have to be reprinted. We don;t 
 SF> really have more places to call 
 SF> - we have new uses for phones numbers so 
 SF> surely this system of at least 
 SF> one guranteed 212 or 718 number can work. 
Well, as you know the reason this has to be done is because so many 
people need extra numbers for faxes, computers, etc that they're 
running out of phone numbers and finding it hard to meet the demand. 
The same thing is happening here in Philly and the surrounding area. 
They added a new area code a few years back - they split the counties 
up. Now the same problem is re-curring within the city, they're 
talking about adding yet another area code to split the city. I'm for 
setting up dedicated area codes for data only. This way, they can issue 
digital numbers for the data users and keep the analog line for the 
voice uses. Currently they're building a digital telephone system in my 
neighborhood. It supposedly is going to carry voice, data, cable (which 
will be digital TV), and other things. This move is definately going to 
give the cable carriers a run for their money. Anyway, with more people 
getting pagers and cell phones, the deman is ever increasing. Some of 
the new area codes may sound funny in the beginning, but people will 
get used to it. I remember a time when the second digit of an area code 
was never higher than "1". Heck, I even remember when there WAS NO AREA 
CODES!!! You want to call LD, you dialed "O" and asked for the LD 
operator, and she would put you through. Back then, a phone was a 
commody - not everybody had one. Now it's a necessity, not only for 
voice, but a few other things as well, and most people have at least 
TWO lines, some even more. The phone companies are finding it harder & 
harder to meet the demand, and the demand is growing  - FAST!! 
Ray Madison 
70661.2471@compuserve.com 
madisonr@auhs.edu 
... USA - at times is seems to be a subsidiary of Japan, Inc.
... QWKRR128 V5.10 [R]
--- ViaMAIL!/WC4 v1.30 
---------------