Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.dcom.telecom > #504
| From | "Adam H. Kerman" <ahk@chinet.com> |
|---|---|
| Newsgroups | comp.dcom.telecom |
| Subject | Re: New Austin area code confirmed to be hoax [telecom] |
| Date | 2011-04-26 19:57 +0000 |
| Organization | The Telecom Digest |
| Message-ID | <ip7837$643$1@news.albasani.net> (permalink) |
| References | <BANLkTikbmhmWDTBLTQ2qPjy-5-vr-BQrXA@mail.gmail.com> <BANLkTik4F4EkMWqv2Ta0NFs2biBt+9YMFw@mail.gmail.com> <VpedneRcqIXLACjQnZ2dnUVZ_oWdnZ2d@posted.nuvoxcommunications> <BANLkTi=JnFOkm8F+n5M8hKCcTsVdi6Woug@mail.gmail.com> |
John Mayson <john@mayson.us> wrote: >Robert Bonomi <bonomi@host122.r-bonomi.com> wrote: >>For a company that is barely viable, these extra expenses can easily >>be "the straw that broke the camel's back", and cause it to go under. >>I don't have any specific case-studies to cite, but the phenomenon is >>well known in business circles. >Not to be insensitive, but if an area code change breaks the camel's >back, it must've been a pretty weak camel. In the Kentucky example, >certainly there were businesses near metro Lexington and Cincinnati >hanging on by the skin of their teeth. What about them? Do we only >change the area code for businesses that can afford it? >Hopefully the day of splits is over and we'll just see overlays from >here on out eliminating this problem. Or, golly, we could cease opening new area codes entirely and address the problem directly instead of ignoring it. The solution for geographically-based telephone numbers is to assign all numbers for that polygon from one pool of telephone numbers. The same solution that makes Local Number Portability work would eliminate wasteful inventories of unassigned line numbers.
Back to comp.dcom.telecom | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread
New Austin area code confirmed to be hoax [telecom] John Mayson <john@mayson.us> - 2011-04-04 11:34 -0500
Re: New Austin area code confirmed to be hoax [telecom] "Adam H. Kerman" <ahk@chinet.com> - 2011-04-06 16:34 +0000
Re: New Austin area code confirmed to be hoax [telecom] John Mayson <john@mayson.us> - 2011-04-07 08:50 -0500
Re: New Austin area code confirmed to be hoax [telecom] fatkinson.remove-this@and-this-too.mishmash.com - 2011-04-07 10:20 -0600
Re: New Austin area code confirmed to be hoax [telecom] tlvp <tPlOvUpBErLeLsEs@hotmail.com> - 2011-04-07 21:05 -0400
Re: New Austin area code confirmed to be hoax [telecom] Wes Leatherock <wleathus@yahoo.com> - 2011-04-22 18:22 -0700
Re: New Austin area code confirmed to be hoax [telecom] John Mayson <john@mayson.us> - 2011-04-23 14:06 -0500
Re: New Austin area code confirmed to be hoax [telecom] bonomi@host122.r-bonomi.com (Robert Bonomi) - 2011-04-25 11:12 -0500
Re: New Austin area code confirmed to be hoax [telecom] John Mayson <john@mayson.us> - 2011-04-25 13:16 -0500
Re: New Austin area code confirmed to be hoax [telecom] "Adam H. Kerman" <ahk@chinet.com> - 2011-04-26 19:57 +0000
Re: New Austin area code confirmed to be hoax [telecom] "Adam H. Kerman" <ahk@chinet.com> - 2011-04-23 18:29 +0000
Re: New Austin area code confirmed to be hoax [telecom] John Mayson <john@mayson.us> - 2011-04-24 12:12 -0500
Re: New Austin area code confirmed to be hoax [telecom] "John Levine" <johnl@iecc.com> - 2011-04-24 23:50 +0000
csiph-web