From: ahk@chinet.com

XPost: nyc.transit

Stephen Sprunk  wrote:
>On 18-Nov-12 21:18, Adam H. Kerman wrote:
>>Stephen Sprunk  wrote:
>>>On 18-Nov-12 14:36, Adam H. Kerman wrote:

>>>Whenever there is a split or overlay in a metro area, the telcos
>>>claim that continuing to allow 7D for home area code dialing would
>>>somehow be "unfair" and therefore everyone should be forced to
>>>10D--and the regulators almost always go along with it.

>>My area has been through both splits and overlays. The industry did
>>not suggest eliminating home NPA 7-digit dialing,

>That's odd, since that's what the same telcos have advocated in other
>areas that have faced the same things.  Perhaps they got shot down by
>the PUC when they proposed it in private, so you didn't hear about it.

Thanks for keeping me informed as to secret decision-making.

>>although it was eliminated NANP-wide for 0+ dialing, just in time for
>>elimination of operators.

>0+7D was eliminated NANP-wide at the same time as 1+7D, when the first
>NNX area codes were introduced.  The problems are the same.
>
>I hadn't heard that operators had been eliminated, though last I checked
>the charge for talking to one was several dollars unless one of the
>PUC-mandated exceptions applied.

If I dial 0+, I get a recording. I don't even know if there are still
operators if I keep pressing 0, but it's so difficult to find one, might
as well be gone.

>>>>so I doubt there's any movement within the industry.

>>>You're welcome to doubt reality, but it's a fact that the Industry
>>>Numbering Consortium is pushing a Uniform Dial Plan that requires
>>>10D for all numbers, NANP-wide.

>>I'm aware of what industry has said to regulators locally. Do you
>>care to provide me with a link to that document so I can read how the
>>benefits exceed substantial costs?

>The INC UDP does not acknowledge any costs, either to the industry or to
>customers.  Nor does it claim any benefits, just manifest necessity.

Oh, goody. As long as they have made a sound business case, let's
implement it immediately.

>>>>There's no economic justification for reprogramming all those
>>>>switches and PBX's.

>>>Of course not.  But the telcos aren't the ones who have to pay
>>>that cost, so what do they care?  Economists call that an
>>>"externality".

>>Reprogramming switches is a cost to them, enormous.

>It's a drop in the bucket in comparison to the external costs, and it
>could be argued that the ongoing costs of maintaining a non-uniform dial
>plan are worse.

Anyone can make a specious argument, Stephen. It's a free country.

--- SoupGate/W32 v1.03
 * Origin: LiveWire BBS -=*=- UseNet FTN Gateway (1:2320/1)