Re: 1+ dialing and area codes

Thread View: fa.telecom

1 messages

[T] Back to Threads [V] Tree View [G] Group Articles

1 total messages Started by Carl Moore, VLD/VMB Wed, 09 Oct 1985 19:21

#33

Author: Carl Moore, VLD/VMB
Date: Wed, 09 Oct 1985 19:21

12 lines
1336 bytes

But does 1603893 from Lawrence, MA get Salem, NH now?

Local service from Newark, Del. picks up 2 prefixes in 215 area in Pa.
(255 Kemblesville and 274 Landenberg).  1+ one of these Pa. prefixes
gets error recording (i.e. no 255 or 274 in Del., area 302).  274 was/is
"protected" anyway because it's local to Wilmington (where 302-478 in
Talleyville area did not require 1+ as a of a few years ago).
1215 + one of these Pa. prefixes should go thru, but probably has to go
thru more equipment.  0+ calls do require the area code.
FROM those 2 Pa. prefixes: 368 and 453 are Newark, Del.; 1368 is Lansdale,
Pa.; 1453 is Perkasie, Pa. (recent!). (The oldest Newark prefix is 302-
368, as I noted in this Digest very recently.)

Thread Navigation

This is a paginated view of messages in the thread with full content displayed inline.

Messages are displayed in chronological order, with the original post highlighted in green.

Use pagination controls to navigate through all messages in large threads.

Back to All Threads