[VoIP] Numbering - existing use of 311

[John Novack]

Mark Rudholm wrote:
> Maybe I have a southern California bias or something, but I never really understood the whole "1+ Toll Alerting" business.  I realize some people love it, but I always thought it was silly, 
>   
Historically, it was pretty much a requirement in Step offices to reach 
the toll operator or for DDD. Some locales with party lines would dial 
112x with the X designating the party on a given line
In the larger Bell cities ( Except LA for other historical reasons ) 
there was no 1+ dialing in the EM days
211 would get one to the toll operator, then later dialing 10 digits 
when the NPA was in the form of N0/1X would get directed properly
Things changed once we enter the electronic era and CLECs and NPA's with 
the form NXX
So, NO, it wasn't/isn't silly
> and now that long-distance is down in the 0-4 cents per minute range, is it really that big of a deal?
>   
I suppose that all depends on your perspective , calling needs and 
income level!
> Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't 1+ dialing introduced to
> disambiguate out-of-npa calls when generalized (from NNX to NXX)
> office codes were first assigned back in the early 70s?  Back when NPAs were all N0/1X and office codes were all NNX, there were no O.C./npa collisions, so all calls could be dialed as 7D or 10D without ambiguity.
Only in panel/XBAR offices.
>   So the idea of 1+ = toll alerting seems like an artifact,
> not something by design.
>   
See above.
> Living in Los Angeles, where area codes are quite numerous, people have generally started just dialing 1+10D for all calls.  
LA was, in the EM era, all or almost all step, Historically due to the 
merging and buyout of independents, then I suspect due to the frugal 
nature of the PUC regarding Pacific Bell. At one point AT&T seriously 
wanted to rid itself of that unit due to the "frugal" nature of the 
California PUC. See "The Fall of the Bell System" for much more 
information on the corporate side of things.
> Given that,it seems to me that the 1 is now just anachronistic baggage, so for my systems, I've dropped it. 
Yet  several state PUC insist on dictating that it be used for toll, or 
ALL calls beyond 7 digits.
>  I just use 10D for all calls.  You can use 7D but there's a timeout.
>
> The telcos still require the 1, however.
>   
In many cases, this is dictated to them by the PUC, or whatever it is 
called in a given state.
Part of the current insanity. In MO, for example, the PUC dictated where 
a split was to be located, rather than growth patterns of the 
population. I believe the only thing that saved SBC was the decline in 
lines due to HSIA and release of 2nd lines along with the decline in FAX 
usage.
IMHO, once the US was all electronic, there should NEVER have been 
another split. Overlays cost everyone less, even though they require  10 
digit dialing in many cases. Intelligence in the switch could be used, 
but it is much easier for the user to just dial 10 digits for all local 
calls

> Also, in 310, which is scheduled for an overlay, 1+10D is now
> mandatory on *all* calls.  I understand the rationale here is that since the CLECs will be the ones primarily getting assignments in the new area code, the CPUC wanted to level they playing field by requiring 11D, thereby eliminating the preferability of 310 office codes.
>   
That makes little sense. 10 digit local calls, 11 digit toll calls is 
really the best solution. It helps the user determine toll vs local and 
simplifys switch translations.
Right now anyone traveling and not in the know can easily become frustrated.
Add to that the cell phone dialing requirements
My carrier requires 10 digits for ALL calls since my home LATA  has an 
overlay and requires it, adds the 1 towards the network and calls go 
through. Since all my cell calls are billed the same, there is no toll 
vs local issue or time of day issue, calls to other cells in the same 
carrier are free, so it is simply a minute issue .
The landline carriers and PUC's could learn from that.

John Novack