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)