Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
This one is from personal experience: Atlanta,GA is closer to Birmingham,AL than to Savannah, even though Savannah is in Georgia.
Macon is about the only metro area in Georgia that would be a closer drive than B'ham from Atlanta. Columbus is probably about the same. Atlanta to Chattanooga, TN is closer than all of them... well if you are on the northside, Chattanooga would be closer, on the southside Macon would be closer. Recollecting all of thesel, like you, from driving them personally. Didn't check distances for exact numbers.
Did anyone ever notice that the original telephone area codes were based upon the length of time that it took for the rotary dial to return to rest? Areas with the largest populations were assigned area codes that had the shortest rotation time. All codes had one or zero as the second digit, and it took the dial a lot longer to return from zero than from one, so the most frequently dialed codes in the largest population centers had a one as the second digit. For the first and third digits, the lower numbers were also assigned to the largest cities. So 212, 213, 312 were in New York, Chicago and Los Angeles, which received the largest number of long distance dialled calls. On a rotary dial, it would take about five times as long to dial 709 (Newfoundland) or 906 (Upper Michigan), as to dial 212 (New York City), so high digit codes were applied to places with low call volumes. When tone dialing replaced pulse, all that became irrelevant.
It was a surprisingly ingenious and well-thought out plan. Local phone prefixes never contained the digits 1 or 0, and area codes always had 1 or 0 as the middle digit, so there could never be duplication of a 3-digit set being both an area code and a local exchange prefix. Automatic switches could recognize the first three numbers as either an area code (contained 1 or 0) or as a local exchange within the same area code (did not contain 1 or 0), enabling the correct routing of the call. The reason local prefixes never contained 1 or 0 was because they were assigned using the letters, not the numbers corresponding to the dial digits. 632-5813 would actually be assigned as ME2-5813, and pronounced MElrose 2-5318, which made it easier to remember, and there was no letter that corresponded to 1 or 0 in the dial configuration. That left all numbers containing 1 or 0 available as unambiguous area codes.
Thanks for posting. Being 61 years old, I had read all this before somewhere, and found it interesting as you do. It seems to me, though that Boston should have deserved a lower number than 617, and Kansas City lower than 816. And with the changing population pattern of today, Phoenix, Las Vegas, San Diego, Orlando, and Tampa, if their numbers were being doled out today, would probably merit much lower numbers than 602, 702, 619, 407, and 813.
Did anyone ever notice that the original telephone area codes were based upon the length of time that it took for the rotary dial to return to rest? Areas with the largest populations were assigned area codes that had the shortest rotation time. All codes had one or zero as the second digit, and it took the dial a lot longer to return from zero than from one, so the most frequently dialed codes in the largest population centers had a one as the second digit. For the first and third digits, the lower numbers were also assigned to the largest cities. So 212, 213, 312 were in New York, Chicago and Los Angeles, which received the largest number of long distance dialled calls. On a rotary dial, it would take about five times as long to dial 709 (Newfoundland) or 906 (Upper Michigan), as to dial 212 (New York City), so high digit codes were applied to places with low call volumes. When tone dialing replaced pulse, all that became irrelevant.
It was a surprisingly ingenious and well-thought out plan. Local phone prefixes never contained the digits 1 or 0, and area codes always had 1 or 0 as the middle digit, so there could never be duplication of a 3-digit set being both an area code and a local exchange prefix. Automatic switches could recognize the first three numbers as either an area code (contained 1 or 0) or as a local exchange within the same area code (did not contain 1 or 0), enabling the correct routing of the call. The reason local prefixes never contained 1 or 0 was because they were assigned using the letters, not the numbers corresponding to the dial digits. 632-5813 would actually be assigned as ME2-5813, and pronounced MElrose 2-5318, which made it easier to remember, and there was no letter that corresponded to 1 or 0 in the dial configuration. That left all numbers containing 1 or 0 available as unambiguous area codes.
This is fascinating. I knew about the 1s and 0s, of course, because I can remember that, but I didn't know about the population centers having the shorter dialing times for area codes.
In 1941, a 51st state of the US was proposed for the Pacific Coast. The new 67,000 square mile, mostly rural state was to include portions of southern Oregon and far northern California. A naming contest ensued, and the "State of Jefferson" was chosen. However, the movement stalled during WWII, and the proposal never made it to Congress.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
