From: stephen@sprunk.org   
      
   XPost: nyc.transit   
      
   On 18-Nov-12 21:18, Adam H. Kerman wrote:   
   > Stephen Sprunk  wrote:   
   >> On 18-Nov-12 14:36, Adam H. Kerman wrote:   
   >>> Aren't you the guy arguing for an NANP-wide dialing plan?   
   >>   
   >> What I really want is scrapping the NANP entirely, but I recognize   
   >> that's not feasible.   
   >>   
   >> As long as are saddled with NANP's fixed-length area codes, I want   
   >> 7D and 1+10D dialing everywhere--including in areas with overlays.   
   >   
   > Is that a "yes"?   
      
   I'm not "arguing for" what I perceive to be an inferior solution, though   
   I am "arguing against" those solutions that are even worse, such as 10D   
   home and foreign area code dialing.   
      
   I suppose you'd construe that as a "yes", but that oversimplifies my   
   position.   
      
   >> 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.   
      
   > 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.   
      
   >>> 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.   
      
   Other INC recommendations, such as how to handle numbering plan   
   expansion, are also presented as manifest necessity--and rely on the UDP   
   being adopted.   
      
   >>> 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.   
      
   S   
      
   --   
   Stephen Sprunk         "God does not play dice."  --Albert Einstein   
   CCIE #3723         "God is an inveterate gambler, and He throws the   
   K5SSS        dice at every possible opportunity." --Stephen Hawking   
      
   --- SoupGate/W32 v1.03   
    * Origin: LiveWire BBS -=*=- UseNet FTN Gateway (1:2320/1)