Re: CHAT: postcodes
| From: | Padraic Brown <elemtilas@...> |
|---|
| Date: | Sunday, September 22, 2002, 21:58 |
|---|
--- John Cowan <jcowan@...> wrote:
>...> 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? It makes little sense to me. On the
other hand, 301 (MD) and 302 (DE) have always been
neighbours.
>...> Since 0 and 1 were not assigned to any letters, they
> traditionally
> (until 1995) didn't appear at the beginning of a
> telephone number;
Well, 0 will get you the Operator, regardless of what
you dial after! Like with "1-800-MATTRESESFORLESS",
once you hit the first S, the rest is meaningless.
Have you ever seen a number start on 1?
>...> The worst continuing annoyance of the U.S. phone
> system is that
> to call any given number, one must dial either a
> 7-digit number or 1 followed
> by a 10-digit number, and if one works the other
> doesn't. Why
> give us an annoying "You do not need to dial 1 +
> area code to reah
> that number" recording instead of just connecting
> the call?
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.
>...> John Cowan
Padraic.
=====
il becko Jowans backalars
so ncorne tan llar'ment ys wentast;
yen dia s' ouws desfussiont
coyn ncorn so phaoerin ys cabast.
__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
New DSL Internet Access from SBC & Yahoo!
http://sbc.yahoo.com
Reply