All the gory details can be found here.
http://www.nanpa.com/ From: Scott Hudnall [mailto:usmetric...@gmail.com] Sent: Sunday, June 30, 2013 20:03 To: carlet...@comcast.net Cc: U.S. Metric Association Subject: Re: [USMA:53010] Area codes, was: RE: Metrication in Australia | Metric Views Don't forget 650 for the Peninsula. Also, 408 just got overlaid with 669, 415 is being overlaid with 628, and they have announced 510 is getting an overlay too, but they haven't published what that number is. On Jun 30, 2013, at 12:59 , Carleton MacDonald wrote: Area code additions nowadays are "overoay" area codes. That is, a new area code is introduced in the same area as the old one, rather than having the area of the old one split, and the area now has two area codes. Reason - You can only slice and dice an area code so much before it becomes so small that it's practically unusable. Example: 301 and 240 in Maryland, 212 and 646 in Manhattan. Benefits: Existing phone numbers are not changed. Side effect: EVERYONE has to dial the entire nine-digit phone number, area code included. No more dialing only the seven digits even if your area code and the one you are dialing is the same. However, with cell phones, you have to dial all ten numbers anyway so this is no big deal. Back in the 1980s when I lived there 415 was the entire Bay Area except for Santa Clara County (San Jose) which was 408. Now, 415 is only San Francisco and Marin County. The East Bay west of the Berkeley Hills is 510, and the area east of the Berkeley Hills is 925. Carleton From: Kilopascal [mailto:kilopas...@cox.net] Sent: Saturday, June 29, 2013 08:36 To: U.S. Metric Association Subject: Metrication in Australia | Metric Views Some years ago, I mentioned that dual labeling of products serves no purpose as people continue to look at the familiar and ignore the new. I cited as an example the situation with area codes in the US. Back in the late '90s the area code where I live was split twice. In each case there was a 6 month dual use period where both area codes worked and the idea was for people to start using the new area code so there would be a smooth transition when the old one was cut off. It didn't work as hoped. The new area code was ignored until it was cut off and calls were not going through and the telephone company was flooded with calls by people unable to place calls. A number of people pleaded ignorant of not knowing this change was taking place despite numerous advertisements. I argued that because of this, a dual period is useless. However, I was corrected by being told the dual period was meant more for business. It was designed to give them enough time to use up old stationary and letter heads. If there was an abrupt change businesses would be sending out letters with old area codes that would not work. Of course, now a days with most correspondences done via emails and the internet, fewer and fewer companies bother to pre-print letter-headed paper, or they do it on a need be basis with their own word processor. Of course, this is not the same for labels and such a dual period is useless. since we have already experienced 20 years of dual labels, there is no need to extend it further in the event of metrication. Businesses could introduce metric sizes with a special label that is seen quite often already. A bonus label. Like: New metric size: 500 mL replaces 16 fl oz (473 mL); 5 % more. Of course, chances are, that 473 mL would not be increased but downsized and I can't see a company advertising a lower amount without an accompanying lower price and that won't happen. 450 mL would be a decrease of 5 % from 473 mL and to those who like to divide by thirds, 450 mL would be 3 equal parts of 150 mL each. <http://metricviews.org.uk/2013/06/metrication-in-australia/#comments> http://metricviews.org.uk/2013/06/metrication-in-australia/#comments John Steele says: 2013-06-26 at 15:28 <http://metricviews.org.uk/2013/06/metrication-in-australia/comment-page-1/# comment-32707> Sorry, but I missed a sixth take-away: 6) Dual labeling hinders rather than helps on page 19. This is stated again in detailed sector plans in chapter 9 and conclusions in chapter 10. I think this is supported by the fact that dual labeling has been required under FPLA in the US since 1994, and we STILL aren't ready in 2013 for even permissive-metric-only (where dual would be allowed, but not required), more less a law requiring metric only. Dual is a false crutch, it helps most people avoid the issue, not learn metric.
