Talk:Area code 423

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Area code 423. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090202090046/http://areacodedownload.com:80/423/index.html to http://www.areacodedownload.com/423/index.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:46, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

Code protection ideas in LATA areas are FALSE

User:BilCat continues to insist on false statements about office code protection practices when LATAs extend into FNPA areas. Edit warring is not a solution to this. Provide references. Edit commentaries such "Reverted disruptive editing - most of the article isn't sourced" can only be interpreted that he has no regard for sourcing, and deflects his own behavior onto others. Unsourced content that is by all appearance correct, may be flagged, but patently false information should be deleted. LATAs are business arrangements, not technical restrictions, as mandated by the MFJ. kbrose (talk) 22:40, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

So explain to me why it's false, with sources. I'm largely ignorant of all the buzz words like "code protection" so you'll have to clarify what those mean. Btw, I live in a cross-state LATA, and we had area code splits at around the same time as this one, for just these reasons. (I'm not specifying where for privacy reasons, but I'd tell you in private if you respect my confidentiality.) It makes perfect logical sense to me, but if I'm misunderstanding it, explain it to me. I have tried to find sources, but to no avail. Perhaps someone else will find one soon. Give the tags time to work. Thanks. BilCat (talk) 22:56, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

Conspiracy theories usually have no negative proof. No one writes about things don't exist, except in fiction. If you don't know the subject area, why are you so insistent with edit warring? We have an article on central office code protection, perhaps you can read that, but it doesn't generally apply for LATA boundaries, only for NPA boundaries and then only in cases for close communities. You are not going to find sources for your claim, except for internal technical documents of Interexchange carriers, when they negotiate business arrangements with adjacencies. There were and are many cases were office codes are not allocated for extended periods in areas that experienced splits, but that does not mean that they are protected and cannot be used. It is probably done to avoid confusion for a while. In the end, before final exhaustion, they would be required to assign them too, hopefully far away from a neighboring NPA with the same office code. The numbering space in the NANP is too valuable to categorically state that numbers were not available because of LATA and state or NPA boundary misalignments. It may happen and then it would likely be documented in Planning Letters for very good reasons. Some planning letters list all central office prefixes affected by relief actions, but often they just list towns, or refer to the LERG, which is always up to date, but of little help for outsiders, especially after the fact. The LATAs in this area are complex and small, there would be a lot of wasted space if office codes were protected for business reasons, and any overlays would likely inherit them. The legal frame work for the Divestiture seemed clear that its intend was only to regulate business interests and provide equal access for new CLECs entering a market. kbrose (talk) 00:17, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

I've reverted myself. So you obviously consider yourself an expert in this, and thus cannot be wrong, I doubt you'd accept any sources I'd find that support the statement anyway, as you've have already determined the content is false. I'm henceforth disengaging. HangingCurve can fight this out with you if he so choses. BilCat (talk) 01:40, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

Wrong again, if you have documented evidence for a specific case, I'll be glad to study it and accept it. There may well be some cases where protection was indeed necessary. kbrose (talk) 02:13, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

If I find a reliable published source that verifies the disputed sentences, I'll include it per Wp:V. Your "acceptance" isn't needed or necessary. BilCat (talk) 02:31, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

@HangingCurve: User:HangingCurve added that information in this diff and following, so I'm pinging him. I assume he has some understanding of the issue, as this wording is found in a number of area code articles. We'll see he says, and where he got the information. BilCat (talk) 01:25, 29 August 2020 (UTC)