Jim Phillips (replying to Dave Knox) wrote:

> Yep.  While the above are definitely possible, I would think that the
local
> telco (or whoever makes the call about assigning new exchanges) would try
to
> restrict the number of duplicate exchanges within overlaid area codes.

While that may be true currently, there is a growing popular swell to ensure
that we have a choice for local carriers also in the future.  When that
happens - look out.  You will probably see a great deal of prefix overlays
since the numbers are currently handed out by whole prefixes to local
telephone companies.  That's one of the things that is making the current
need for additional exchanges so important.  Where we are in rural Kansas,
we will be receiving a new area code (620) in January.  Note, we really
don't need one.  The current 316 area code has more than 70% of the numbers
still "unused" but because they are allocated in blocks of 10,000 (to even
the smallest local exchange), there are literally hundreds of thousands of
numbers that will never be used.

Let me give some concrete examples...

Saint John has 1250 residents and approximately 120 business.  The total
number of phones in use (excluding cell phones because they are on a
different exchange) is approximately 2700 (including every modem, voice and
fax line).  That means that there are 6300 numbers that could be used - but
never will be.  In the county, there are a total of 7 exchanges (6 towns
plus a "rural" exchange).  St. John is as big as the smallest 5 exchanges
combined!  So there are 70,000 numbers that could be assigned in our county
for an estimated 9,000 phones!  Who needs more area codes!  Reallocate the
existing numbers.

In larger cities the problem is stated as being caused by the rapid increase
of cell phones.  Wichita has 7 available cell phone options.  At a minimum
that would be 70,000 numbers for 330,000 people.  But!  CellularOne and
All-Tel both have 5 or 6 possible exchanges to service the Wichita area (in
case they can "corner the market").  That means that together they could
have 120,000 cell phones connected in a city of 330,000.  In reality, they
are probably both wasting about 40,000 numbers.  Multiply that for the
larger cities... and you can see the problem is not in the proliferation of
phones, but in the allocation of exchanges.  Government at work at its best!

Glenn Koster