[VoIP] Numbering Plans (Was the government is your friend)

Sat Oct 27 19:55:47 CDT 2007

Ahoy:

I'm sorry to butt in here. I just got home and there were 176 unread email 
messages in my inbox. Three-quarters were about the CNNP. My eyes are 
glazing over, I'm tired from a long trip, and I still haven't come to the 
punchline. I am sending this message in advance of having read the whole 
batch, so I hope my input is taken in good faith.

I am a new guy here, and I only have one office code working, (749) but have 
reserved (hoarded) another one, (222). I reserved them because they had 
personal historical or nostalgic significance to me.

I really didn't want to tie up SHelterisland9, aka RIverside9, and ACademy, 
BAldwin, CApital, and CAstle, and prevent others who have a personal 
interest in them from enjoying their use.

My vote: I would like to have an area code plan set up so that many others 
could use 749, and 222, in many area codes. Personally, I would like to use 
212+222+xxxx, but someone has reserved the area code 212 as an office code, 
inadvertantly blocking its use as a famous and popular area code.

As to the prediction (fear?) that only fewer than 880 
collectors/hobbyists/enthusiasts exist or will want to join, I say 
"nonsense" because I was a two-year hold-out, then suddenly saw the light (a 
B2 lamp on my 550C cordboard :-) and joined. In the short time that I have 
enjoyed subscribership, I have demonstrated my * to several CG's and other 
civilians, and they ALL think it's cool, and several want to subscribe right 
away. I predict that the subscribership of this group, like other groups 
that gain noteriety, will increase geometrically, and we will then have to 
go back, and straighten out a numbering plan that will have gotten out of 
control, while if we were to do it NOW, the eventual crisis will never need 
to addressed. I don't feel that having to dial an extra 3 digits is onerous, 
and I DO feel that it makes our operation appear more professional.

I sincerely think (as a math geek, former telephone man, and general 
rigid-thinking hardheaded Kraut) that the "club" ought to "own" the area 
codes, and individuals should be able to pick an office code within whatever 
area is of interest to them.  That will provide an immediate repertoir of 
office codes, and those among us who have previously grabbed area codes will 
still be able to use them, along with thier favorite office codes.  In fact, 
a particular gentleman in NYC could have the number he always wanted to have 
in real life, but could never get:

1-212-212-1212.

I feel that the service codes and toll-free codes should be treated the same 
way, allowing a more universal usage of all the cool numbers.  Just think, 
828 people could have a PA6-5000 telephone number. And 880 people could use 
any office code.

In conclusion, this hobby is going to snowball way beyond our expectations, 
and we need to do something now. Look at all the wasted electrons that have 
given their lives already, just hashing out this hoarding/saving argument. 
Can you imagine the S**T storm that will ensue, when it really gets to be an 
issue?

A. P. Bloom, Chief Rodent Mitigation Officer & Chef d'Cuisine.

SHelter Island Telephone, Telegraph, Telewombat, Sewage, Bridges & Tunnels.

Currently, 1+749-0100

Hopefully, someday, 1+631-749-0100

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Paul Wills" <pdwills at cedarknolltelephone.com>
To: "Voice Over IP Tandem for Analog Switches" <voip at ckts.info>
Sent: Saturday, October 27, 2007 1:23 PM
Subject: Re: [VoIP] Numbering Plans (Was the government is your friend)

|
| ----- Original Message ----- 
| From: "Greg Blakely" <greg at vyger.net>
| To: "Voice Over IP Tandem for Analog Switches" <voip at ckts.info>
| Sent: Saturday, October 27, 2007 11:25 AM
| Subject: Re: [VoIP] [ATCA] The Government is Your Friend
|
| >
| > As to X11 and X00, that is a good discussion; and one I think needs to
| > be held.
| >
|
| [edited]
|
| Here's my opinion:
|
| Being that CNET was intended to be a network for people to interconnect
| their legacy telephone switches together, I have to wonder if there would
| ever be enough switches on the network to require more than 900 office
| codes.  Since the CNET DNS does allow office codes to be "split" there
| certainly is already a potential to handle many more offices.  About the
| only benefit I see to an "area code" would be to allow other people to use
| prefexes that were already taken.
|
| For my purposes, I treat CNET as a private network not unlike the old Penn
| Central Tele-Central system where one would dial an "8" to get into the
| network and then a three digit prefix plus 4 extension digits to call a
| specific railroad extension.  Perhaps providing the option to emulate the
| NANP (or any country's numbering plan) is OK for those who want to but I
| don't see any reason to make things any more complicated than they have to
| be.
|
| I'm trying to say the next part as delicately as possible:
|
| Although there are lots of contributers to CNET who don't plan to have
| legacy switches (and I would be the first to fight anyone who wanted to
| exclude them within reason), I hope that the primary purpose of the 
network
| continues to be a means of interconnecting people who, at least, have an
| interest in vintage telephone switching equipment.   After all, the "C" in
| CNET does stand for "Collectors'.'"  (I am thinking electromechanical but 
I
| suppose it should include vintage electronic stuff even though I believe
| that the electromechanical stuff will be running long after the electronic
| stuff is simply because of how difficult it is to "fake" an integrated
| circuit.)
|
| I hope I don't see a time where CNET simply becomes another way to 
"bypass"
| the public telephone network.  The next question is, how big could this
| thing become?
|
| Those are my "druthers."  Others may have other wishes.
|
| PDW
|
| _______________________________________________
| VoIP mailing list
| VoIP at ckts.info
| http://lists.ckts.info/mailman/listinfo/voip
| Project Web Page: http://www.ckts.info/
|
|
| -- 
| No virus found in this incoming message.
| Checked by AVG Free Edition.
| Version: 7.5.503 / Virus Database: 269.15.12/1096 - Release Date: 
10/27/2007 11:02 AM
|
| 