Re: CHAT: postcodes

Padraic Brown scripsit:

> > > Also, the area code system doesn't place similar
> > > codes next to each other the way our zip codes are done.
> >
> > Indeed, it systematically did the opposite as long as possible.
>
> Is there a reason?
The idea was that adjacent locations shouldn't have readily confusible
codes.  Most long-distance calls are to nearby locations or to
major cities.

> > Since 0 and 1 were not assigned to any letters, they traditionally
> > (until 1995) didn't appear at the beginning of a telephone number;
Sorry, I misspoke.  They didn't appear as *either* of the first two
digits of a local phone number.  Therefore, traditional (pre-1995)
area codes all had 0 or 1 as the second digit.

> Have you ever seen a number start on 1?
No, for the same reason (named exchanges couldn't start with 1, as
it was not mapped to a letter).  Hence the use of 1 for out-of-area calls.

> Who knows! You would think that with all the fancy
> schmancy technology, their computer could be
> programmed to assume that you're dialling within the
> area code if you dial 7 numbers; or that if 1-xxx
> isn't required, just connect the call.
Apparently there is no better reason than that they have *always*
done it that way.  In the U.K. you can (IIRC) always use 0+ dialing
even if calling next door.

--
John Cowan <jcowan@...>     http://www.reutershealth.com
I amar prestar aen, han mathon ne nen,    http://www.ccil.org/~cowan
han mathon ne chae, a han noston ne 'wilith.  --Galadriel, _LOTR:FOTR_