| Home |
| Search |
| Today's Posts |
 |
|
Menu
| London Transport (uk.transport.london) Discussion of all forms of transport in London. |
|
|
LinkBack | Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
|
| London Transport (uk.transport.london) Discussion of all forms of transport in London. |
|
|
LinkBack | Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
#11
April 6th 12, 05:12 PM
posted to uk.railway,uk.transport.london,misc.transport.rail.americas
|
|||
|
|||
Telephone line numbers, prefixes, and area codes
Stephen Sprunk wrote:
On 05-Apr-12 18:42, Adam H. Kerman wrote: Stephen Sprunk wrote: On 01-Apr-12 12:19, wrote: Originally Mexico was to have an area code, but that was changed to a separate country code. Two area codes: 905 for Mexico City and 706 for northwest Mexico. That ended in 1991. They were reserved area code-like dialing patterns within the NANP to reach parts of Mexico; outside the NANP, the country code 52 had to be used. Prior to international direct distance dialing, it meant that the caller could dial the number himself without an intercept operator. After IDDD, the country code or area code was permissive. Ah, so they weren't really area codes per se. Mexico never intended to be part of the NANP; we just had dialing shortcuts for commonly-called areas within Mexico. Northwest Mexico was originally wired due to American investment. The rest of Mexicon, not that I had heard of. NANP was in large part about telephone industry associations. Bermuda and the parts of the Caribbean in NANP, until recently, were locations originally wired by companies with American and British investment: ITT (a company no longer in the telephony business at all), GTE, Cable & Wireless. A GTE subsidiary offered telephone service in Dominican Republic in the 1940's, which is why that country is in NANP. Did using those shortcuts result in lower rates since an operator wasn't needed? Or was it just a matter of convenience/speed? In days in which there was a severe shortage of trunks, sometimes appointments were made to set up these international calls, but that may not have been the case with Mexico in the 1950's. I hope AT&T passed on significantly lower call set-up expenses to subscribers, but I don't really know. Assuming the caller dialed his own call after IDDD was possible, the rates were the same whether one called the number as if it were in NANP or using 52+. AT&T claimed that by the late '80's, more people were dialing these areas using the country code in lieu of the "area code" and therefore the two "area codes" could be reclaimed, but given the desperate shortage of area codes, they would have said anything. |
| Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Threaded Mode
