Interesting People mailing list archives
IP: 10K vs. 1K
From: David Farber <dfarber () earthlink net>
Date: Sun, 31 Mar 2002 12:41:59 -0500
-----Original Message----- From: Lauren Weinstein <lauren () vortex com> Date: Sun, 31 Mar 2002 08:41:04 To: johnl () iecc com Subject: 10K vs. 1K John, As you may know, California (and I believe now some other states) are already operating under the 1000 number rule (originally under temporary FCC authority), along with rules specifying minimum block fill requirements and "give back" requirements for unused numbers. This had the immediate effect here in L.A. of rolling back the planned 310 overlay, and stopping the planned 818 split in my area. How long these suspensions will last is unclear. I agree that the nonsense PR about running out of phone numbers due to fax machines, etc. has gone on way too long. As you point out, the real causes have been the 10K number allocation schemes (cellular is currently exempted from 1K block allocations and still gets 10K blocks in California), along with large unused blocks allocated for Centrex and DID use, etc. Basically, phone numbers were treated as an infinite resource with most of the costs of ever more frequent area code splits being borne by consumers and businesses, who were forced to undergo expensive disruptions when their phone numbers were changed. Idiocy. --Lauren-- Lauren Weinstein lauren () pfir org or lauren () vortex com or lauren () privacyforum org Tel: +1 (818) 225-2800 Co-Founder, PFIR - People For Internet Responsibility - http://www.pfir.org Co-Founder, Fact Squad - http://www.factsquad.org Co-Founder, URIICA - Union for Representative International Internet Cooperation and Analysis - http://www.uriica.org Moderator, PRIVACY Forum - http://www.vortex.com Member, ACM Committee on Computers and Public Policy For archives see: http://www.interesting-people.org/archives/interesting-people/
Current thread:
- IP: 10K vs. 1K David Farber (Mar 31)