IP: 10K vs. 1K

[David Farber <dfarber@earthlink.net>]

-----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/