North American Network Operators Group|
Date Prev | Date Next |
Date Index |
Thread Index |
Author Index |
Re: US Domain -- County Delegations
- From: Kevin Oberman
- Date: Fri Jul 28 13:27:37 1995
> Date: Fri, 28 Jul 1995 08:26:34 -0700 (PDT)
> From: Nikos Mouat <firstname.lastname@example.org>
> On Fri, 28 Jul 1995, Geert Jan de Groot wrote:
> > As far as I know, there is no 'congestion' on the 800-namespace.
> > maybe, one of the reasons is that these 'records' have a fixed, 7-digit
> > length, and 'vanity' numbers have the same length as ugly ones,
> > spreading the load.
> actually, I think there is. that is why they are opening up the '888'
> area code to be toll free also.
And they are seeing the same problems.
1. No one wants to be in 888. There is a belief consumers will not
understand that 888 is a functional equivalent to 800 for a long time
and 888 numbers will be at a disadvantage.
2. Holders of vanity numbers in 800 space are demanding that they get
the same numbers in 888 space! They say that the vanity numbers are
functional trademarks and that they (whoever "they" are) will sue if
they don't get the 888 number as well as the 800.
If this does not sound familiar, you have not been reading your mail lately!
R. Kevin Oberman
Energy Sciences Network (ESnet)
National Energy Research Supercomputer Center (NERSC)
Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory (LLNL)
EMAIL: email@example.com Phone: +1 510 422-6955