[VoiceOps] Rate Center Maps, Locations for NPANXXs

[Peter R.]

  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