Stephen Sprunk wrote:
On 05-Apr-12 18:42, Adam H. Kerman wrote:
Stephen Sprunk wrote:
On 01-Apr-12 12:19, wrote:

Originally Mexico was to have an area code, but that was changed to a
separate country code.

Two area codes: 905 for Mexico City and 706 for northwest Mexico.

That ended in 1991.

They were reserved area code-like dialing patterns within the NANP to
reach parts of Mexico; outside the NANP, the country code 52 had to be
used. Prior to international direct distance dialing, it meant that the
caller could dial the number himself without an intercept operator. After
IDDD, the country code or area code was permissive.

Ah, so they weren't really area codes per se. Mexico never intended to
be part of the NANP; we just had dialing shortcuts for commonly-called
areas within Mexico.

Northwest Mexico was originally wired due to American investment. The rest
of Mexicon, not that I had heard of. NANP was in large part about telephone
industry associations. Bermuda and the parts of the Caribbean in NANP,
until recently, were locations originally wired by companies with American
and British investment: ITT (a company no longer in the telephony business
at all), GTE, Cable & Wireless. A GTE subsidiary offered telephone service
in Dominican Republic in the 1940's, which is why that country is in NANP.

Did using those shortcuts result in lower rates since an operator wasn't
needed? Or was it just a matter of convenience/speed?

In days in which there was a severe shortage of trunks, sometimes appointments
were made to set up these international calls, but that may not have been
the case with Mexico in the 1950's. I hope AT&T passed on significantly
lower call set-up expenses to subscribers, but I don't really know.

Assuming the caller dialed his own call after IDDD was possible, the rates
were the same whether one called the number as if it were in NANP or
using 52+. AT&T claimed that by the late '80's, more people were dialing
these areas using the country code in lieu of the "area code" and therefore
the two "area codes" could be reclaimed, but given the desperate shortage
of area codes, they would have said anything.

On Apr 6, 1:12*pm, "Adam H. Kerman" wrote:
GTE, Cable & Wireless. A GTE subsidiary offered telephone service
in Dominican Republic in the 1940's, which is why that country is in NANP..

Just out of curiosity, do you have any opinion regarding the service
and equipment quality of GTE/Automatic Electric vs. the Bell System/
Western Electric?

On Apr 6, 12:15*pm, Stephen Sprunk wrote:

Ah, so they weren't really area codes per se. *Mexico never intended to
be part of the NANP; we just had dialing shortcuts for commonly-called
areas within Mexico.
Did using those shortcuts result in lower rates since an operator wasn't
needed? *Or was it just a matter of convenience/speed?

It depends if there were any discounts for directly dialed
international calls at that time. I don't know when such discounts
began, but probably later since it took time to get IDDD capability
installed.

When discounts began for domestic direct dialed calls (circa 1971)
they weren't too much--as time went on the difference became greater.
In the 1970s, if a subscriber didn't have DDD capability or was having
trouble placing the call, they still got the cheaper DDD rate for a
plain station call. Later on they charged dearly for any operator
assistance, even if there was line trouble.

wrote:
On Apr 6, 1:12 pm, "Adam H. Kerman" wrote:

GTE, Cable & Wireless. A GTE subsidiary offered telephone service
in Dominican Republic in the 1940's, which is why that country is in NANP.

Just out of curiosity, do you have any opinion regarding the service
and equipment quality of GTE/Automatic Electric vs. the Bell System/
Western Electric?

I have no clue.

On 06/04/2012 17:15, Stephen Sprunk wrote:
On 05-Apr-12 18:42, Adam H. Kerman wrote:
Stephen wrote:
On 01-Apr-12 12:19, wrote:
Originally Mexico was to have an area code, but that was changed to a
separate country code.

Two area codes: 905 for Mexico City and 706 for northwest Mexico.

That ended in 1991.

They were reserved area code-like dialing patterns within the NANP to
reach parts of Mexico; outside the NANP, the country code 52 had to be
used. Prior to international direct distance dialing, it meant that the
caller could dial the number himself without an intercept operator. After
IDDD, the country code or area code was permissive.

Ah, so they weren't really area codes per se. Mexico never intended to
be part of the NANP; we just had dialing shortcuts for commonly-called
areas within Mexico.

Did using those shortcuts result in lower rates since an operator wasn't
needed? Or was it just a matter of convenience/speed?

You may recall that until 1980, northwest Mexico was dialed with 903.
Mexico changed its numbering pattern. That part of Mexico got a "city code"
of 6, so the NANP area code was changed to 706.


Calling from metropolitan France to any of the country's overseas
departments or territories is only a trunk/long distance call, whilst
all those entities have separate international dialling codes if
dialling from outside of La Republique.

Calls into San Marino from Italy or the Vatican City are also trunk/long
distance. Those wishing to ring San Marino from outside Italy or Vatican
City must dial +378.

The Vatican City has its own international code of +379 reserved, though
that state is integrated into Italy's telephone numbering plan,
specifically into Rome's which has the 06 city code.

(It would not surprise me if some high-ranking Vatican officials did
have phones that used only +379, however.)

+44 is also used not only for the the United Kingdom of Great Britain &
Norther Ireland, but also for the Isle of Man as well as Bailiwicks of
Guernsey and Jersey.

Anything further afield, such as Gibraltar or the Falklands, is an
international call with separate country codes.

Calls from Spain into Gibraltar were also trunk/long-distance until
early 2007, however, according to Wikipedia.

wrote:

Calls from Spain into Gibraltar were also trunk/long-distance until
early 2007, however, according to Wikipedia.

Interesting that there were periods in which Spain cooperated. Haven't
there been times that Spain has closed that international border? Spain
has been disputing the loss of Gibraltar for centuries. The residents don't
wish to be Spanish. It may be long past time for Spain to cede the point.

I wonder if there's an even older disputed international border.

In message , at 20:21:28 on Fri, 6 Apr 2012,
" remarked:
+44 is also used not only for the the United Kingdom of Great Britain &
Norther Ireland, but also for the Isle of Man as well as Bailiwicks of
Guernsey and Jersey.

Although call costs to and from the Channel Islands from the mainland
are usually more expensive.
--
Roland Perry

On 06/04/2012 20:40, Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 20:21:28 on Fri, 6 Apr 2012,
" remarked:
+44 is also used not only for the the United Kingdom of Great Britain
& Norther Ireland, but also for the Isle of Man as well as Bailiwicks
of Guernsey and Jersey.

Although call costs to and from the Channel Islands from the mainland
are usually more expensive.

That is true. And many mobile phone contracts within the UK that offer
amounts of time for unlimited calling within the country do not cover
the Crown Dependencies.

On 4/6/2012 12:10 PM, Adam H. Kerman wrote:
wrote:
On Apr 6, 1:12 pm, "Adam H. wrote:

GTE, Cable& Wireless. A GTE subsidiary offered telephone service
in Dominican Republic in the 1940's, which is why that country is in NANP.

Just out of curiosity, do you have any opinion regarding the service
and equipment quality of GTE/Automatic Electric vs. the Bell System/
Western Electric?

I have no clue.

Having lived in GTE territory most of my life, with a couple of years in
Ma Bell territory in between, I'd say that the phones themselves were
equal.

Service was another thing all together. Things got so bad in the late
1970s that the city of Santa Monica considered giving GTE the boot in
favor of Pacific Bell. Admittedly, there was always a dial tone, but
noise on the lines was horrible, and getting any kind of service problem
taken care of was very slow.

They eventually improved, thank Dog, before we started hooking up modems!

It's now Verizon. Service is great. Bureaucracy stinks.

Regards,

-DAve

Roland Perry writes:

In message , at 13:38:02 on Fri, 6
Apr 2012, " remarked:
a lot of people used their phones while we were taxiing.

Quite a few airlines now allow use of mobile phones when you are taxiing
*in*. And if you are flying Business Class they aren't quite as shouty
about you turning them off immediately the plane pushes back, on the way
out.

Because business class is where an airline gets most of its revenue
from. Get shorty with a businessman and he tells his travel
department that they were not nice, which could translate into less
revenue for the airline.

But if sayyyyfteeee is their prime concern, then a ban would apply
equally to all passengers.

yes, but surely the safety aspect does not 'kick in' until at least the
departing plane is at the end of the runway and about to start
accelerating for takeoff. So maybe the airlines think that they can
trust the business class passengers to turn off the phones before the
critical time.