On 12/2/2021 7:52 AM, Frank Slootweg wrote:
> nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote:
>> In article <so8cc5.nk8.1@ID-201911.user.individual.net>, Frank Slootweg
>> <this@ddress.is.invalid> wrote:
>>
>>>>> It appears that the USA is trying more to keep numbers the same
>>>>> and introduce more complexity when required, instead of just adding
>>>>> extra digits and/or changing the numbering plan.
>>>>
>>>> because the former has minimal impact and the latter is highly
>>>> disruptive and will break things.
>>>
>>> Note that as Rob described, there was only *one* change - in our
>>> lifetime - which affected normal subscriber numbers. As Rob explained,
>>> 'all' other changes were in the special numbers, not in normal
>>> subscriber numbers.
>>>
>>> Our - single - change was not "highly disruptive", because it was well
>>> designed and implemented, including things like grace period, user
>>> tools, extensive communication, etc.. It was mostly a non-event and note
>>> that I was in IT (supply/support), so if it was "highly disruptive" we
>>> would be amongst the ones feeling most of the pain.
>>>
>>> Just an example: My change was from 01724-NNNN to 0172-40NNNN (dashes
>>> for clarity only), so just inserting a zero before my local number. Big
>>> fscking deal! (All other changes were similar.)
>>>
>>> Moral: Often it's better to bite the - relatively small - bullet, than
>>> to keep applying patch on patch on patch and continuing the mess
>>> forever.
>>
>> if the bullet is actually small, yes. in this case, it's very much not.
>>
>> you greatly underestimate the extent of the impact.
>
> No, I don't. I'm talking about taking action *before* letting it turn
> into a mess. *Now* it's obviously too late and any thorough repair will
> indeed be very painful. That's exactly what I meant.

You've created this fantasy that there some sort of a "mess" was created
by the inability to distinguish between landline and mobile numbers. In
reality, the North American Numbering System was much more well thought
out than those in other countries. There was never a need to add extra
digits to phone numbers.

From the beginning it was known that the number of area codes would
have to increase as population increased, and that areas would have to
be spit up. I recall the first such split where I grew up, 305 split
into 305, 813, and 904.

When the quantity of area codes with 0/1 as the second digit began to
run out they were able to eliminate the 0/1 requirement since all the
areas that needed more numbers now had Electronic Switching Systems,
again expanding the quantity of available numbers without adding extra
digits.

"In 1960, AT&T engineers, while already estimating that the capacity of
the numbering plan would be exceeded by 1975,[15] prepared the nation
for the next major step in the evolution of the network by eliminating
central office names, and introducing all-number calling (ANC). ANC
increased the number of central office prefixes possible in each
numbering plan area from 540 to an eventual maximum of 792 after the
introduction of interchangeable central office codes in the 1970s."

A side-benefit of the NANP was that it was not possible to implement
"Caller Pays" for mobile phones.

Joerg Lorenz <hugybear@gmx.ch> wrote:
> Am 02.12.21 um 16:13 schrieb Frank Slootweg:
> > AJL <noemail@none.com> wrote:
> >> On 12/1/2021 10:47 AM, sms wrote:
> > [...]
> >
> >>> Easy solution #3: filter out the person.
> >>
> >> I see lots of "plonk!" and filter threats here on Usenet. I always
> >> figured it was a 'I don't like you and I'm stomping off with my lower
> >> lip out' kinda thing. Then I figure the complainer probably sneaks a
> >> peek from time to time. But who knows. I read pretty much everything and
> >> have never used a filter. I simply ignore those who are annoying. Easy
> >> peasy...
> >
> > Yes, a public plonk is very immature. What does the plonker expect?
> > That the plonkee stops posting or responding? I think not.
>
> Next step in the escalation would be the threat to delete the whole
> usenet ...

You'd better believe it buster! I run my own newsserver, so one more
peep out of you and I'll blast you away!

nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote:
> In article <so8kc5.d3c.1@ID-201911.user.individual.net>, Frank Slootweg
> <this@ddress.is.invalid> wrote:
>
> > So if Google is so 'smart', then why is it showing me ads for the
> > product I bought from the very same vendor?
>
> because more than just google is involved.

It obviously was a rethoric question, i.e. the whole system is *not*
smart. As the beginning - my Google search - and end - my order in my
Gmail inbox - is Google, it's not unfair to say that Google is not so
smart as many people claim.

> <https://www.digitaltrends.com/features/wh-do-you-see-ads-stuff-already-
> bought/>

Thanks for the link.

It was rather funny to see that article splattered with ads from the
company whose products I browsed recently, including some products which
I bought from them a long time ago. QED! :-)

In article <soav33.e5o.1@ID-201911.user.individual.net>, Frank Slootweg
<this@ddress.is.invalid> wrote:

> >
> > > So if Google is so 'smart', then why is it showing me ads for the
> > > product I bought from the very same vendor?
> >
> > because more than just google is involved.
>
> It obviously was a rethoric question, i.e. the whole system is *not*
> smart. As the beginning - my Google search - and end - my order in my
> Gmail inbox - is Google, it's not unfair to say that Google is not so
> smart as many people claim.
>
> > <https://www.digitaltrends.com/features/wh-do-you-see-ads-stuff-already-
> > bought/>
>
> Thanks for the link.
>
> It was rather funny to see that article splattered with ads from the
> company whose products I browsed recently, including some products which
> I bought from them a long time ago. QED! :-)

use an ad blocker.

i see almost no ads. it's quite nice.

On 12/1/2021 10:22 PM, The Real Bev wrote:

<snip>

> You can't license a car now in California unless you have liability
> insurance, which info is provided to the DMV by the insurance companies.
>  Same with smog tests if your car is 1976 or newer.  OTOH, the odds of
> being caught are pretty small.  I used to see CHP cars on the freeway a
> LOT, but not any more.  Local cops work local streets, but I have to
> wonder how many would stop someone because they didn't have a 2" square
> number-sticker on their license plate.

Not so much pulling someone over for expired registration, just an extra
ticket when you get pulled over for something else. Also, they'll go to
a big public parking lot and walk through ticketing every parked car
with an expired registration.

nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote:
> In article <soatki.9a0.1@ID-201911.user.individual.net>, Frank Slootweg
> <this@ddress.is.invalid> wrote:
>
> > > > > > It appears that the USA is trying more to keep numbers the same
> > > > > > and introduce more complexity when required, instead of just adding
> > > > > > extra digits and/or changing the numbering plan.
> > > > >
> > > > > because the former has minimal impact and the latter is highly
> > > > > disruptive and will break things.
> > > >
> > > > Note that as Rob described, there was only *one* change - in our
> > > > lifetime - which affected normal subscriber numbers. As Rob explained,
> > > > 'all' other changes were in the special numbers, not in normal
> > > > subscriber numbers.
> > > >
> > > > Our - single - change was not "highly disruptive", because it was well
> > > > designed and implemented, including things like grace period, user
> > > > tools, extensive communication, etc.. It was mostly a non-event and note
> > > > that I was in IT (supply/support), so if it was "highly disruptive" we
> > > > would be amongst the ones feeling most of the pain.
> > > >
> > > > Just an example: My change was from 01724-NNNN to 0172-40NNNN (dashes
> > > > for clarity only), so just inserting a zero before my local number. Big
> > > > fscking deal! (All other changes were similar.)
> > > >
> > > > Moral: Often it's better to bite the - relatively small - bullet, than
> > > > to keep applying patch on patch on patch and continuing the mess
> > > > forever.
> > >
> > > if the bullet is actually small, yes. in this case, it's very much not.
> > >
> > > you greatly underestimate the extent of the impact.
> >
> > No, I don't. I'm talking about taking action *before* letting it turn
> > into a mess. *Now* it's obviously too late and any thorough repair will
> > indeed be very painful. That's exactly what I meant.
>
> you're backpedaling.

nospam can't read for comprehension != Frank is backpedaling.

As has been mentioned, our change was in *1995* (I thought it was much
earlier, but I take Rob's word for it), so I was clearly talking about
making changes (in the US) a *long* time ago.

On 12/2/2021 9:31 AM, sms wrote:

> they'll go to a big public parking lot and walk through ticketing
> every parked car with an expired registration.

In my jurisdiction the vehicle has to be moving on a public street
before the driver can be cited for an expired registration. The car by
itself cannot be cited so your parking lot scenario wouldn't happen
here. It is not illegal to own a car with an expired registration, only
to drive it on a public road. Your jurisdiction may be different of
course...

Am 02.12.21 um 17:54 schrieb AJL:
> On 12/2/2021 9:31 AM, sms wrote:
>
>> they'll go to a big public parking lot and walk through ticketing
>> every parked car with an expired registration.
>
> In my jurisdiction the vehicle has to be moving on a public street
> before the driver can be cited for an expired registration. The car by
> itself cannot be cited so your parking lot scenario wouldn't happen
> here. It is not illegal to own a car with an expired registration, only
> to drive it on a public road. Your jurisdiction may be different of
> course...

I think that is the case almost everywhere.
A car on private estate neither uses public resources nor does it pose a
danger to anyone.

--
De gustibus non est disputandum

On 12/2/2021 8:13 AM, Frank Slootweg wrote:
> AJL <noemail@none.com> wrote:
>> On 12/1/2021 10:47 AM, sms wrote:
> [...]
>
>> > Easy solution #3: filter out the person.
>>
>> I see lots of "plonk!" and filter threats here on Usenet. I always
>> figured it was a 'I don't like you and I'm stomping off with my lower
>> lip out' kinda thing. Then I figure the complainer probably sneaks a
>> peek from time to time. But who knows. I read pretty much everything and
>> have never used a filter. I simply ignore those who are annoying. Easy
>> peasy...
>
> Yes, a public plonk is very immature. What does the plonker expect?
> That the plonkee stops posting or responding? I think not.

No, of course not. The only values of publicly plonking are that it
alerts others in the newsgroup that the person is a troll, and also
perhaps stimulates them to also plonk the troll.

In article <sob0cu.e5o.1@ID-201911.user.individual.net>, Frank Slootweg
<this@ddress.is.invalid> wrote:

> > > >
> > > > you greatly underestimate the extent of the impact.
> > >
> > > No, I don't. I'm talking about taking action *before* letting it turn
> > > into a mess. *Now* it's obviously too late and any thorough repair will
> > > indeed be very painful. That's exactly what I meant.
> >
> > you're backpedaling.
>
> nospam can't read for comprehension != Frank is backpedaling.

nope.

frank is pretending to know more about the north american phone system
than those who live in there and are *deeply* familiar with it.

> As has been mentioned, our change was in *1995* (I thought it was much
> earlier, but I take Rob's word for it), so I was clearly talking about
> making changes (in the US) a *long* time ago.

even in 1995, it would have been a huge impact.

changing a fundamental design would be a huge impact regardless of when
and there is no getting around it. it's that simple.

nanp was designed to have fixed length numbers, with a 3-3-4 format,
which has several advantages over variable length numbers, including
simpler phone switches and easier to remember numbers as well as
knowing where they are located.

with mobile and portability, the last one is no longer guaranteed to be
100% accurate, although it mostly is and is still useful.

splits/overlays are a very straightforward solution, with minimal
downside.

adding digits,segregating mobile and/or variable length numbers would
break a lot of things and cause all sorts of problems.

as i've said a few times, they have reserved space for extending the
number space, but that drastic of a change very unlikely to happen any
time soon, if ever.

it would take *years* of planning and upgrading (which ain't free),
*before* it's initially deployed, and with a very long grace period,
and the pushback would be huge. put simply, it would be a massive
clusterfuck.

Joerg Lorenz <hugybear@gmx.ch> wrote:
> Am 02.12.21 um 17:54 schrieb AJL:
>> On 12/2/2021 9:31 AM, sms wrote:
>>
>>> they'll go to a big public parking lot and walk through ticketing
>>> every parked car with an expired registration.
>>
>> In my jurisdiction the vehicle has to be moving on a public street
>> before the driver can be cited for an expired registration. The car by
>> itself cannot be cited so your parking lot scenario wouldn't happen
>> here. It is not illegal to own a car with an expired registration, only
>> to drive it on a public road. Your jurisdiction may be different of
>> course...
>
> I think that is the case almost everywhere.
> A car on private estate neither uses public resources nor does it pose a
> danger to anyone.

Here any car owner with expired registration, tax, insurance or safety
inspection gets an automatic fine unless they have applied for a
suspension of these duties beforehand, which is valid for a year and
has to be renewed. And of course the car has to be on private property.

Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> wrote:
> As has been mentioned, our change was in *1995* (I thought it was much
> earlier, but I take Rob's word for it), so I was clearly talking about
> making changes (in the US) a *long* time ago.

10-10-1995, operatie decibel (all numbers would be 10 digits in length
from that time, actually 9 digits of course as the leading 0 is not
really part of the number, it is just a prefix indicator).

the number 10 was used all over the place in the communication around
this operation.

https://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operatie_Decibel

On 12/2/2021 8:54 AM, AJL wrote:
> On 12/2/2021 9:31 AM, sms wrote:
>
>> they'll go to a big public parking lot and walk through ticketing
>> every parked car with an expired registration.
>
> In my jurisdiction the vehicle has to be moving on a public street
> before the driver can be cited for an expired registration. The car by
> itself cannot be cited so your parking lot scenario wouldn't happen
> here. It is not illegal to own a car with an expired registration, only
> to drive it on a public road. Your jurisdiction may be different of
> course...

I guess that California is different. I was once parked in a Park and
Ride lot and the California Highway Patrol came in and ticketed all the
cars with expired registration (not mine). This was a _public_ parking
lot. They can also cite cars parked on a public street. Going into a
private parking lot might be different, though my neighbor, an ex-cop
said that it was not illegal for police to go into private parking lots
as well.

nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote:
> nanp was designed to have fixed length numbers, with a 3-3-4 format,
> which has several advantages over variable length numbers, including
> simpler phone switches and easier to remember numbers as well as
> knowing where they are located.

No, the contrary! In your system the knowledge of where 212 is located
brings you nothing w.r.t. the location of 213.

In our system the leading digits of the number tell you more and more
about the location. When you know where 0346 is you can guess where
0347 will be. Or 0345. They are sectors of the 034 area.

Joerg Lorenz <hugybear@gmx.ch> wrote:
> Am 02.12.21 um 01:18 schrieb nospam:
> > In article <so922g$6t6$1@dont-email.me>, sms
> > <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote:
> >
> >>> If I had one of those 'cheap' plans it would likely cost me a fortune.
> >>> The wife spends hours on the phone to family and friends around the
> >>> country, both calling from here and when we travel.
> >>
> >> Yes, if you had one of those pay-per-minute plans. But not many people
> >> do those anymore.
> >
> > yes they do.
>
> They are a thing from a distant past.

I'm a 'thing' from a distant past as well! :-) And yes, I use
(pre-paid) pay-per-minute.

So sms is right that not *many* people do, but nospam is kind of right
as well, assuming he means that (quite?) *some* people still do.

In article <slrnsqi3vh.id8.nomail@xs9.xs4all.nl>, Rob
<nomail@example.com> wrote:

> > nanp was designed to have fixed length numbers, with a 3-3-4 format,
> > which has several advantages over variable length numbers, including
> > simpler phone switches and easier to remember numbers as well as
> > knowing where they are located.
>
> No, the contrary! In your system the knowledge of where 212 is located
> brings you nothing w.r.t. the location of 213.

no reason why it should.

area codes were allocated based on number of pulls on a rotary dial,
which is what existed in the 1940s, long before touchtone.

212 has the fewest number of pulls, making it the least amount of time
to dial, so it was assigned to the most populated area, new york city,
where it would benefit the most number of people and the most number of
calls would be processed.

213 was one more pull and originally assigned to southern california,
also a populated area. 312, which has the same number of pulls, was
assigned to chicago.

new jersey, home to bell labs, was originally 201, because it was
numerically first.

the original allocation was as follows:
<https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/7/72/North_American_Num
bering_Plan_NPA_map_BTM_1947.png/700px-North_American_Numbering_Plan_NPA
_map_BTM_1947.png>

> In our system the leading digits of the number tell you more and more
> about the location. When you know where 0346 is you can guess where
> 0347 will be. Or 0345. They are sectors of the 034 area.

so what?

in nanp, the area code determines the state or portion of state, the
exchange determines the city or town within the area code and the last
four digits is the subscriber number.

originally, the exchanges had names, which is why there are letters on
the dial.

<https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/2/21/US-NJ-LAkewoo
d2697-bell-system-telephone-number-rotary-dial-1940.jpg/600px-US-NJ-LAke
wood2697-bell-system-telephone-number-rotary-dial-1940.jpg>

<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Telephone_exchange_names>

In article <sob2cj$im1$1@dont-email.me>, sms
<scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote:

> I guess that California is different.

it is.

california is where its illegal to drive with a for sale sign in your
car window because it's conducting business on public property.

> I was once parked in a Park and
> Ride lot and the California Highway Patrol came in and ticketed all the
> cars with expired registration (not mine). This was a _public_ parking
> lot.

for your car to be in that parking lot, it had to be driven on a public
street to get there, guaranteeing that there was a violation.

In article <sob8av.qoo.1@ID-201911.user.individual.net>, Frank Slootweg
<this@ddress.is.invalid> wrote:

> > >> Yes, if you had one of those pay-per-minute plans. But not many people
> > >> do those anymore.
> > >
> > > yes they do.
> >
> > They are a thing from a distant past.
>
> I'm a 'thing' from a distant past as well! :-) And yes, I use
> (pre-paid) pay-per-minute.
>
> So sms is right that not *many* people do, but nospam is kind of right
> as well, assuming he means that (quite?) *some* people still do.

there are still many plans that are pay-per-minute, including some that
sms advocates getting.

not everyone gets the unlimited everything package.

On 12/2/2021 10:26 AM, Rob wrote:
> nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote:
>> nanp was designed to have fixed length numbers, with a 3-3-4 format,
>> which has several advantages over variable length numbers, including
>> simpler phone switches and easier to remember numbers as well as
>> knowing where they are located.
>
> No, the contrary! In your system the knowledge of where 212 is located
> brings you nothing w.r.t. the location of 213.

Well yes, you have to know where the area code is located, and they are
not contiguous.

Since the system began in the days of rotary dial phones, the area codes
that were the fastest to dial went to the locations that were called the
most, hence New York getting 212, the fastest area code to dial. Los
Angeles got 213. Chicago got 312. Area codes with zero as the middle
digit were undesirable and went to less populated areas.

The big advantages of the 3-3-4, at least in the beginning, were that
1) area codes were not used for anything but long distance calls (which
were infrequent because of the high cost) so seven-digit dialing was the
norm

2) central offices had prefixes with easy to remember names
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Telephone_exchange_names> which made
phone numbers easier to remember because most of your calls were to just
a few prefixes

3) it made it easier for switchboard operators then easier for
mechanical Strowger switches.

The ten digit NANP was designed for future expansion without being
forced to add additional digits, while not requiring all ten digits to
be dialed.

sms <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote:
> On 12/2/2021 7:52 AM, Frank Slootweg wrote:
> > nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote:
> >> In article <so8cc5.nk8.1@ID-201911.user.individual.net>, Frank Slootweg
> >> <this@ddress.is.invalid> wrote:
> >>
> >>>>> It appears that the USA is trying more to keep numbers the same
> >>>>> and introduce more complexity when required, instead of just adding
> >>>>> extra digits and/or changing the numbering plan.
> >>>>
> >>>> because the former has minimal impact and the latter is highly
> >>>> disruptive and will break things.
> >>>
> >>> Note that as Rob described, there was only *one* change - in our
> >>> lifetime - which affected normal subscriber numbers. As Rob explained,
> >>> 'all' other changes were in the special numbers, not in normal
> >>> subscriber numbers.
> >>>
> >>> Our - single - change was not "highly disruptive", because it was well
> >>> designed and implemented, including things like grace period, user
> >>> tools, extensive communication, etc.. It was mostly a non-event and note
> >>> that I was in IT (supply/support), so if it was "highly disruptive" we
> >>> would be amongst the ones feeling most of the pain.
> >>>
> >>> Just an example: My change was from 01724-NNNN to 0172-40NNNN (dashes
> >>> for clarity only), so just inserting a zero before my local number. Big
> >>> fscking deal! (All other changes were similar.)
> >>>
> >>> Moral: Often it's better to bite the - relatively small - bullet, than
> >>> to keep applying patch on patch on patch and continuing the mess
> >>> forever.
> >>
> >> if the bullet is actually small, yes. in this case, it's very much not.
> >>
> >> you greatly underestimate the extent of the impact.
> >
> > No, I don't. I'm talking about taking action *before* letting it turn
> > into a mess. *Now* it's obviously too late and any thorough repair will
> > indeed be very painful. That's exactly what I meant.
>
> You've created this fantasy that there some sort of a "mess" was created
> by the inability to distinguish between landline and mobile numbers.

Nope. The inability to distinguish between landline and mobile numbers
was not the cause, it was a (note 'a', not 'the') consequence.

> In
> reality, the North American Numbering System was much more well thought
> out than those in other countries. There was never a need to add extra
> digits to phone numbers.

Indeed, you didn't have to add an extra digit (not digitS) to your
phone numbers, but you had to change the organzation/layout of your
system many, many times. (As we repeatedly said,) We had to change our
system only *once* during our lifetime. I hope you don't mind that we
prefer one single change over many.

[...]

Rob <nomail@example.com> wrote:
> Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> wrote:
> > As has been mentioned, our change was in *1995* (I thought it was much
> > earlier, but I take Rob's word for it), so I was clearly talking about
> > making changes (in the US) a *long* time ago.
>
> 10-10-1995, operatie decibel (all numbers would be 10 digits in length
> from that time, actually 9 digits of course as the leading 0 is not
> really part of the number, it is just a prefix indicator).
>
> the number 10 was used all over the place in the communication around
> this operation.
>
> https://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operatie_Decibel

Thanks. After I posted the above I did a search (on google.nl) and one
of the top hits was indeed the Dutch Wikipedia article about 'Operatie
Decibel'. To be honest, I didn't remember the name, which to me proves
that it indeed was mostly a non-event.

nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote:
> In article <soav33.e5o.1@ID-201911.user.individual.net>, Frank Slootweg
> <this@ddress.is.invalid> wrote:
>
> > > > So if Google is so 'smart', then why is it showing me ads for the
> > > > product I bought from the very same vendor?
> > >
> > > because more than just google is involved.
> >
> > It obviously was a rethoric question, i.e. the whole system is *not*
> > smart. As the beginning - my Google search - and end - my order in my
> > Gmail inbox - is Google, it's not unfair to say that Google is not so
> > smart as many people claim.
> >
> > > <https://www.digitaltrends.com/features/wh-do-you-see-ads-stuff-already-
> > > bought/>
> >
> > Thanks for the link.
> >
> > It was rather funny to see that article splattered with ads from the
> > company whose products I browsed recently, including some products which
> > I bought from them a long time ago. QED! :-)
>
> use an ad blocker.
..
> i see almost no ads. it's quite nice.

I don't mind the ads. I realize that all of this has to be paid in
some way, so if someone earns some money by showing me ads, it's fine by
me. (Of course I hardly look at them and never click on them.)

In article <sob6e0$hs8$1@dont-email.me>, sms
<scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote:

> Since the system began in the days of rotary dial phones, the area codes
> that were the fastest to dial went to the locations that were called the
> most, hence New York getting 212, the fastest area code to dial. Los
> Angeles got 213. Chicago got 312. Area codes with zero as the middle
> digit were undesirable and went to less populated areas.

with a few exceptions, such as new jersey, which was 201, numerically
first, because that's where bell labs was located.

for the geographically impaired, that borders new york city and the
northern portion is basically a suburb of nyc. new jersey to new york
city calls were (and still are) very common, largely because people
worked in new york city and lived less expensive new jersey.

> The big advantages of the 3-3-4, at least in the beginning, were that
> 1) area codes were not used for anything but long distance calls (which
> were infrequent because of the high cost) so seven-digit dialing was the
> norm

true, and in some cases, 4-5 digit dialing within the same exchange.

> 2) central offices had prefixes with easy to remember names
> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Telephone_exchange_names> which made
> phone numbers easier to remember because most of your calls were to just
> a few prefixes

also, the same city or town had the same name but a different third
digit.

> 3) it made it easier for switchboard operators then easier for
> mechanical Strowger switches.

known as step, and yes.

> The ten digit NANP was designed for future expansion without being
> forced to add additional digits, while not requiring all ten digits to
> be dialed.

when they realized it was going to be exhausted, they reserved space
for additional digits, but that is very unlikely to happen for reasons
described elsewhere in this thread.

In article <sobbdr.o1c.1@ID-201911.user.individual.net>, Frank Slootweg
<this@ddress.is.invalid> wrote:

> > reality, the North American Numbering System was much more well thought
> > out than those in other countries. There was never a need to add extra
> > digits to phone numbers.
>
> Indeed, you didn't have to add an extra digit (not digitS) to your
> phone numbers, but you had to change the organzation/layout of your
> system many, many times.

it didn't change at all.

the same 3-3-4 ten digit system is still in place. the only difference
is that there are more area codes.

> (As we repeatedly said,) We had to change our
> system only *once* during our lifetime. I hope you don't mind that we
> prefer one single change over many.

as opposed to no changes.

In article <sobbod.o1c.1@ID-201911.user.individual.net>, Frank Slootweg
<this@ddress.is.invalid> wrote:

> > > It was rather funny to see that article splattered with ads from the
> > > company whose products I browsed recently, including some products which
> > > I bought from them a long time ago. QED! :-)
> >
> > use an ad blocker.
> .
> > i see almost no ads. it's quite nice.
>
> I don't mind the ads. I realize that all of this has to be paid in
> some way, so if someone earns some money by showing me ads, it's fine by
> me. (Of course I hardly look at them and never click on them.)

the problem is that most ads are very annoying, especially the ones
that obscure the content, and just about all of them track users in
some way.

some web sites offer free content with ads and paid content without,
much like mobile apps do.

brave browser can block ads, with an option to pay websites as a result
of what's blocked.