On 9/20/2010 2:54 PM, Peter Beckman wrote:
On Mon, 20 Sep 2010, John Todd wrote:
I strongly suspect that you describe below a systematic problem with switch/NPAXXX mapping, as you indicate. The exact example you use may be a bit misleading as to the extent of those errors, though. Bear in mind that the DC area has some very strange things in their phone mapping, in particular, the Beltsville CO which you identify. There are facilities served out of the Beltsville CO which are, shall we say, "non-standard". The Arlington exchange you reference may be significantly farther away from the switch than is typical. The Beltsville CO may show some unusual mappings; I would suggest you don't use it as an indicator or test case given the number of technically complex government use cases in that area.
Your phrase of "inconsistently and automatedly get the data I need" is a truism for number-to-geography mapping these days. Ultimately, there is a growing lack of geographic association with numbers, and the relative value of doing that association is diminishing. For instance, I have no phone numbers associated with me on a common basis that mapped to a switch that is within 2000 miles of where I sit most often. While I am a phone geek, this is growing more common even with friends who are not in the telephony industry. Other than an increasingly inaccurate curiosity (pretty maps with lots of lines!) I don't see much use for geographic association in the future.
Thanks John! True, some of the larger metro areas are convoluted, including the Beltsville CO as you mention. However it's clear it is possible to provide at least somewhat accurate information, at least a GeoPoint on a map that is within some arbitrarily drawn ratecenter boundry.
While geographic association continues to decrease with the ability of people getting phone numbers from anywhere and have them ring wherever they are, the NANPA and LATA setup isn't going away anytime soon. Everyone in my neighborhood who has a home phone has it within the same exchange or three. Many businesses still rely on having local neighborhood numbers. It may go away someday, but right now there is still a demand for local numbers, and people prefer numbers (for whatever reason) in a familiar exchange where possible.
I've found ratecenter maps:
http://www.truevectortech.com/industries/telecom/
but they aren't overlayed on something like Google Maps, so they are less useful. People in NYC are surprisingly fickle about their phone number and its "location." Until that ends, I still need accurate NPANXX/LERG mappings not to the switch (clearly) but to a general service area.
Speaking of ratecenter boundries, other than the map example above, where would one get a hold of the ratecenter boundries in some GIS-type mappable format?
Beckman ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Peter Beckman Internet Guy beckman at angryox.com http://www.angryox.com/ -
How do you geo-map for cell-only households which has grown past 15% of the market now? In my own circle of non-telecom friends, very few have a landline and most have a cell phone with an area code outside Tampa. LATA boundaries really only affect ILEC's. CLEC's offer LATA wide and state-wide calling in some cases. VoIP isn't exactly rate center based EXCEPT with ported numbers. - Peter