Author Topic: Old phone numbers question  (Read 4659 times)

Offline twocvbloke

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4479
  • W.E. 500 DM
Re: Old phone numbers question
« Reply #15 on: January 21, 2015, 02:43:10 PM »
11 digits here in the UK... :o

Offline rp2813

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 842
  • 10/50
Re: Old phone numbers question
« Reply #16 on: January 21, 2015, 08:21:08 PM »
11 digits here in 408/669 overlay- land.  I'm not a fan of overlays.  I've yet to see a number with the 669 Area Code, but we've been dialing 11 digits for a few years now.  It's a love/hate thing.  It's stupid for me to have to dial 11 digits to call my next door neighbor, but the upside is that I get four more turns of the finger wheel!

And don't get me started on how some of the telco switches still send across only 7 digits to Caller ID equipment.  I complained to the PUC about this right away and got nowhere.  Subscribers are required to dial 11 digits, but the telco that's forcing us to do so is allowed to only send across 7?  Hey AT&T (nee Pacific Bell), you want me to dial the Area Code but if you don't provide it on my caller ID display, how am I supposed to know if it's a 408 or 669 number that called me?  I gave up trying to explain this to the PUC after two complaints made through them to AT&T's executive offices, and even the AT&T reps couldn't recognize the problem was theirs.  They kept saying my Caller ID equipment needed to be replaced.  Right.  Caller ID is only as good as the information the local exchange carrier provides.

Terry, you nailed it re: other local exchanges that had a 3 or 6.  There were.  CYpress 3- existed in the adjacent CO's territory -- with CY sharing the same digital equivalents as AX.  Also, CHerry 6- came along to join CHerry 3- in the AXminster CO at some point.  Things probably got a little messy with 5-digit dialing around then . . .
Ralph