Yahoo Web Search

    • How many states have only one area code?

      • In the USA a few states have only one area code such as Alaska, Delaware, Hawaii, Idaho, Maine, Montana, New Hampshire, North Dakota, Rhode Island, South Dakota, Vermont, West Virginia and Wyoming.
      www.funtrivia.com/askft/Question107213.html
  1. People also ask

    What state has the most telephone area codes?

    What are all state area codes?

    How do you find area codes?

    What is the telephone area code for United States?

  2. Make Your Guess: How Many States Have Only One Area Code?

    kxrb.com › make-your-guess-how-many-states-have

    Dec 15, 2020 · Ten other states get along fine with a single area code. Our neighbors in North Dakota, Montana, and Wyoming have that single area code. Gee, that must mean we are all proudly rural. The itsy-bitsy fella's of Delaware and Rhode Island get along fine with one.

  3. How many and which US states have only one telephone area ...

    www.answers.com › Q › How_many_and_which_US_states

    Area code +1 331 is used in suburbs west of Chicago, Illinois, in the United States. Area code +33 1 is Paris, France. (France is telephone country code +33, and Paris's area code 01 becomes +33 1 ...

  4. Make Your Guess: How Many States Have Only One Area Code ...

    www.newsbreak.com › news › 2126501151912

    Dec 15, 2020 · I grew up in the 507. It's just a bit east of Sioux Falls over there in the Gopher State. Growing up I kind of knew there was another area code in the state, somewhere 'up north'. Well, where i grew up pretty much everything else in Minnesota was 'up north'. Now of course, Minnesota has 7 area codes.

  5. North American Numbering Plan - Wikipedia

    en.wikipedia.org › wiki › North_American_Numbering_Plan
    • History
    • Administration
    • Numbering Plan
    • Expansion
    • Countries and Territories
    • Dialing Procedures
    • Alphabetic Mnemonic System
    • Cellular Services
    • Toll Charges
    • Number Portability

    From its beginnings in 1876 and throughout the first part of the 20th century, the Bell System grew from essentially local or regional telephone systems. These systems expanded by growing their subscriber bases, as well as increasing their service areas by implementing additional local exchanges that were interconnected with tie trunks. It was the responsibility of each local administration to design telephone numbering plans that accommodated the local requirements and growth.As a result, the Bell System as a whole developed into an unorganized system of many differing local numbering systems. The diversity impeded the efficient operation and interconnection of exchanges into a nationwide system for long-distance telephone communication. By the 1940s, the Bell System set out to unify the various numbering plans in existence to provide a unified, systematic approach to route telephone calls across the nation and provide efficient long-distance service that eventually did not require...

    The NANP is administered by the North American Numbering Plan Administrator (NANPA, formerly Administration).This function is overseen by the Federal Communications Commission, which assumed the responsibility upon the breakup of the Bell System. The FCC solicits private sector contracts for the role of the administrator. Before the breakup of the Bell System, administration of the North American Numbering Plan was performed by AT&T's Central Services Organization. In 1984, this function was transferred to Bell Communications Research (Bellcore), a company created by the divestiture mandate to perform services for the newly created local exchange carriers. On January 19, 1998, the NANPA function was transferred to the IMS division of Lockheed Martin in Washington, D.C. In 1999, the contract was awarded to Neustar, a company spun off from Lockheed for this purpose. In 2004, and again in 2012, the contract was renewed. On January 1, 2019, Somos assumed the NANPA function under a one-y...

    The vision and goal of the architects of the North American Numbering Plan was a system by which telephone subscribers in the United States and Canada could themselves dial and establish a telephone call to any other subscriber without the assistance of switchboard operators. While this required an expansion of most existing local numbering plans, many of which required only four or five digits to be dialed, or even fewer in small communities, the plan was designed to enable local telephone companies to make as few changes as possible in their systems.

    Canada and the United States have experienced rapid growth in the number of area codes, particularly between 1990 and 2005. The widespread adoption of fax, modem, and mobile phone communication, as well as the deregulation of local telecommunication services in the United States in the mid-1990s, increased the demand for telephone numbers. The Federal Communications Commission allowed telecommunication companies to compete with the incumbent local exchange carriers for services, usually by forcing the existing sole service provider to lease infrastructure to other local providers. Because of the original design of the numbering plan and the telephone switching network that assumed only a single provider, number allocations had to be made in 10,000-number blocks even when much fewer numbers were required for each new vendor. Due to the proliferation of service providers in some numbering plan areas, many area codes fell into jeopardy, facing exhaustion of numbering resources. The num...

    Of all states or territories, the U.S. state of California has the largest number of area codes assigned, followed by Texas, Florida and New York, while most countries of the Caribbean use only one. Many Caribbean codes were assigned based on alphabetic abbreviations of the territory name, as indicated in the third column of the following table (Letter code). This follows the traditional letter assignments on telephone dials. For some Pacific islands, the NANPA area code is the same as the country codethat was discontinued upon membership in the NANP. Membership in the NANP brings significant advantages for countries in the vicinity of the United States and Canada, which usually are already the top dialing destinations. Both countries also originate most of the tourism business for the Caribbean. This is enhanced by the integration from sharing the same dialing procedures, without international access codes, and the toll-free number system of the NANP, as businesses in all member co...

    The structure of the North American Numbering Plan permits implementation of local dial plans in each plan area, depending on requirements. When multiple NPA codes serve an area in an overlay arrangement, ten-digit (10D) dialing is required. Seven-digit (7D) dialing may be permissible in areas with single area codes. Depending on the requirement of toll alerting, it may be necessary to prefix a telephone number with 1. The NANPA publishes dial plan information for individual area codes. The standard dial plans in most cases are as follows: The number of digits dialed is unrelated to being a local call or a toll call when there is no toll alerting. Allowing 7D local dial across an area code boundary, which is uncommon today, requires central office code protection, locally if using toll alerting, across the entire area code otherwise, to avoid assignment of the same seven-digit number on both sides. Most areas permit local calls as 1+10D except for Texas, Georgia, and some jurisdicti...

    Many dials on modern telephones in use in the NANP service areas maintain the tradition of alphabetic dialing. Usually each pushbutton from digit 2 to 9 also displays three letters, which is standardized in ISO 9995-8 and, in Europe, E.161. Historically, the letters Q and Z were omitted, although some modern telephones contain them. SMS-capabledevices have all 26 letters. The alphabet is apportioned to the buttons as follows: No letters are typically mapped to keys 1 and 0, although some corporate voicemailsystems use 1 for Q and Z, and some old telephones assigned the Z to the digit 0. Originally, this scheme was used as a mnemonic device for telephone number prefixes. When telephone numbers in the United States were standardized in the mid-20th century to seven digits, the first two digits of the exchange prefix were expressed as letters rather than numbers, using the telephone exchange name. Before World War II, the largest cities used three letters and four or five numbers, whil...

    The North American Numbering Plan does not set aside special non-geographic area codes exclusively for cellular phones. Only one regional exception exists in area code 600 in Canada.In many other national numbering plans outside the NANP, mobile services are assigned separate prefixes. Cell phone numbers in the NANP are allocated within each area code from special central office prefixes and calls to them are billed at the same rate as any other call. Consequently, the caller pays pricing model adopted in other countries, in which calls to cellular phones are charged at a higher nationwide rate, but incoming mobile calls are not charged to the mobile user, could not be implemented. Instead, North American cellular telephone subscribers are also generally charged for receiving calls (subscriber pays). This has discouraged mobile users from publishing their telephone number. However, price competition among carriers has reduced the average price per call minute for contract customers...

    Calls between different countries and territories of the NANP are not typically charged at domestic rates. For example, most long-distance plans may charge a California subscriber a higher rate for a call to British Columbia than for a call to New York, even though both destinations are within the NANP. Similarly, calls from Bermuda to U.S. numbers (including 1-800 numbers, which are normally thought of as toll-free) incur international rates. This is because many of the island nations implemented a plan of subsidizing the cost of local phone services by directly charging higher pricing levies on international long-distance services.[citation needed] Because of these higher fees, scams had taken advantage of customers' unfamiliarity with pricing structure to call the legacy regional area code 809. Some scams lured customers from the United States and Canada into placing expensive calls to the Caribbean, by representing area code 809 as a regular domestic, low-cost, or toll-free call...

    The Telecommunications Act of 1996 (47 U.S.C. § 251 (b)(2)) authorizes the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to require all local exchange carriers (LECs) to offer local number portability. The FCC regulations were enacted on June 27, 1996, with changes to take effect in the one hundred largest Metropolitan Statistical Areasby October 1, 1997 and elsewhere by December 31, 1998. The FCC directed the North American Numbering Council (NANC) to select one or more private-sector candidates for the local number portability administrator (LNPA) function,in a manner akin to the selection of the North American Numbering Plan Administrator (NANPA). The toll-free telephone numbers in NPA 800, 888, 877, 866, 855, 844, and 833 have been portable through the RespOrgsystem since 1993.

  6. Our Numbered Days: The Evolution of the Area Code

    www.theatlantic.com › technology › archive

    Feb 13, 2014 · (Those with 0 in the middle indicated states with only one area code —hence DC’s 202 and Florida’s 305—while those with a 1 denoted states with multiple codes.) The system meant that those ...

  7. 12 Dangerous Scam Phone Numbers and Area Codes to Avoid ...

    clark.com › scams-rip-offs › 12-dangerous-area-codes

    Apr 16, 2021 · 649 area code – Turks and Caicos Islands. 767 area code – Commonwealth of Dominica. 809, 829, 849 area codes – Dominican Republic. 876 area code – Jamaica. When an unfamiliar number comes in, you’re better off waiting for a voicemail to determine if you have a legitimate caller before calling it back.

  8. State legislative chambers that use multi-member districts ...

    ballotpedia.org › State_legislative_chambers_that
    • Forms
    • States Employing Mmds
    • History
    • Effects
    • Arguments
    • Legal Issues
    • External Links

    According to the Vermont Legislative Research Service, there are five forms of MMD: 1. 1.1. 1. Bloc: Voters receive as many votes as there are open seats, and can vote once for a particular candidate. All votes must be used. 1.2. 2. Bloc with partial abstention (BPA): Same as bloc, except voters can elect not to use all of their votes. 1.3. 3. Cumulative: Voters may use their votes however they wish, such as splitting their votes between multiple candidates or using all of them on a single candidate. This system was not used in state legislative elections as of 2020. The last state to use the system was Illinois, which ended the practice in 1982. 1.4. 4. Staggered: Two legislators represent the same district with elections happening in different years. 1.5. 5. Seat/post: Instead of running in a pool of candidates with the aim of finishing strongly enough, candidates run for a specific seat as in a single-member district. Scholars argue that as a matter of structure, staggered and po...

    Establishment

    All MMD states, except Washington, have constitutional provisions authorizing their use. In Washington, MMD use is prescribed by state statute.

    Congressional background

    The U.S. Constitutiondoes not specify the method of apportionment for federal representatives. This led most of the original 13 states to employ MMDs in the first congressional elections. By 1842, six states were electing U.S. Representatives at large, though three only had one representative. Congress established single-member districts that year in an apportionment act. MMDs have not been used in the U.S. House since. Each state continues to elect two U.S. senators at large on staggered sch...

    Decline in the state legislatures

    1. 1.1. See also: Legal issues Electing state legislators in MMDs declined in the 1960s following legislation and court decisions. MMDs' usage declined from nearly half of legislative seats at the turn of the 1960s to 26 percent of representatives and 7.5 percent of senators in 1984. Below is a brief timeline of the decline of MMDs in state legislatures: 1. 1980s:Florida, Hawaii, Illinois, South Carolina, and Virginia stopped using MMDs. 2. 1990s: Alaska, Georgia, and Indiana stopped using MM...

    Incumbents

    A 2011 report by the University of Vermont concluded that although incumbents in MMDs are more likely to face challengers than their single-member counterparts, their chances of winning re-election are greater and the likelihood of a close outcome is lesser.

    Female and minority representatives

    Studies have examined whether female legislators are more numerous in MMDs. Scholars dispute this claim. FairVote, a group that describes itself as "a nonpartisan champion of electoral reforms," found that as of January 2014, six of the 10 state legislatures with the greatest percentages of female representation used MMDs in some capacity. Women held 31.0 percent of the seats in MMD chambers and 22.8 percent of the seats in single-member district chambers. Scholars dispute the claim that fema...

    Pros

    Supporters of MMDs present the following arguments: 1. Redrawing of boundaries is not necessary, as the number of members can simply be adjusted. 2. There is the possibility of increasing ideological diversity and encouraging third-party candidates. 3. Incumbents have more time to spend serving constituents.

    Cons

    Opponents of MMDs argue the following: 1. It is more difficult to build cohesion and to hold individual members accountable. 2. Plunking, the act of voting for only one candidate, can work to the benefit of a party or interest group. 3. There is no direct connection between member and voter as with the single-member system. 4. MMDs may violate the principle of "one man, one vote." 5. MMDs occasionally conflict with Voting Rights Actregulations. 6. Campaigns in MMDs are more expensive.

    Equal Protection Clause

    Below is a brief timeline of U.S. Supreme Court rulings related to MMDs and the Equal Protection Clause. 1. 1980: The U.S. Supreme Court ruled in City of Mobile v. Boldenthat to violate the Equal Protection Clause, the discriminatory entity must have had a purpose for doing so, and a matching result must have manifested from it. 2. 1973: The U.S. Supreme Court ruled in White v. Regesterthat MMDs could not be used to disenfranchise racial groups. 3. 1966: The U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Burns...

    Voting Rights Act amendments of 1982

    Prior to 1982, legal challenges to MMDs were based on either the 14th Amendment (known as the Equal Protection Clause) or the 15th Amendment (the equal right of citizens to vote). In 1982, Congress amended the Voting Rights Actto allow courts to overturn MMDs based on the effect on minority voters without requiring proof of discriminatory intent.

  9. People also search for