Talk:Area code 413

This article has been automatically assessed as Stub-Class because it uses the on the article page.
 * If you agree with this assessment, please remove this message.
 * If you disagree with the assessment, please change it by editing the class parameter of the above to the appropriate class and removing the stub template from the article.

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Area code 413. 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/20090203183803/http://www.areacodedownload.com:80/413/index.html to http://www.areacodedownload.com/413/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 ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 12:45, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

Why was 413 assigned to Western Mass?
Does anyone have a link to the history of why 413 was chosen to be assigned to the more rural western part of the state? Typically area codes were originally assigned based on population and the fact that rotary dial phones were being used. Dialing 4, 1 and then 3 was shorter than dialing 6, 1 and then 7 which is contrary to that scheme. The article mentions that originally 413 was supposed to be assigned to Pennsylvania but not why it was chosen for western Mass. 413 is the inverse for 314 which was assigned to St Louis which is a city about Boston's size so it would have made more sense for Boston to have the 413 area code. Also telling is that area code 716 (the inverse of 617) was assigned to western New York adding more confusion as to why the rural part of Massachusetts was assigned the "shorter" 413 area code and not Boston. Having some history about that might help the article. Dbroer (talk) 15:22, 7 August 2020 (UTC)
 * See article Original North American area codes. No, area codes were not chosen based on population and rotary dialing was no concern. The correct criteria are laid out in the cited article. In fact, the numbering plan was designed for operator toll dialing, where operators did not even use rotary dials but MF keys. Dialing by subscribers was only an idea in 1947, and was in fact many years off. AT&T could not have predicted the population grows of many areas, and the creation of many new area codes in the next decade is partly proof of that. kbrose (talk) 03:52, 30 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm not a telephony expert or historian but there's plenty of sources out there that mention the rotary dial as a reason as well as anecdotal evidence more populous areas got lower numbers. The three shortest dial codes on a rotary phone are all across the country and happen to include the three cities with the largest populations in 1947.  The fact that they are also in order of population (Chicago was #2 in the country) is even more telling.  It may not be THE reason but it certainly was A reason in the decision making process.  Otherwise, how do you explain New York City, Chicago and Los Angeles all happening to be ranking #1, 2 and 3 in population in 1947 getting the #1, 2 and 3rd lowest numbers for area codes?
 * These articles all talk about and support the notion of lower numbers being assigned by population:
 * https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2014/02/our-numbered-days-the-evolution-of-the-area-code/283803/
 * https://www.nytimes.com/1991/06/02/nyregion/201-609-and-now-oh-my-908.html
 * https://www.atlasobscura.com/articles/area-code-logic-north-american-numbering-plan
 * All support what I said.
 * This podcast also mentions that and asks the very question I've been asking - why did western Mass. get assigned 413 and not Boston?
 * https://underunderstood.com/podcast/episode/area-code-conspiracy-theory/
 * Massachusetts was always going to have two area codes but based on all available knowledge that the rotary dial was part of the assignment allocation process, why would the least populated part of the state get the lower number? Dbroer (talk) 19:54, 30 August 2023 (UTC)
 * It got a lower number, because population size didn't matter. It was not a consideration. MA got two area codes not because "it was always going to have two", but because the western part had a distinct toll routing infrastructure so that it was uneconomical to send traffic, for example from the Albany, NY, area, to Boston and then backhaul it to the western part of the state, on routes where the that traffic would collide with traffic to/from Boston. Yes, these articles all repeat what some other unreliable source has stated, but those are all opinions arrived at long after the fact without research to the origins of facts. The truth is not easy ot find, indeed. The last "reference" you cite, comes to the conclusion that indeed no strong correlation exists between size and assignments, and it rightfully calls it a conspiracy theory. And that is what it is, a conspiracy of writers not doing the research work, but repeating other faulty conclusions, none of which can be traced to the original sources of the 1940s or early 50s. No original research written by the engineers that created the numbering plan mentions even the possibility of such considerations.  But the fact is that indeed a few of the largest cities were indeed numbering first, but for a completely different reason, namely that they were already the established Regional Centers of the General Toll Switching Plan of 1929, and thus had existing and extensive infrastructure for toll calling.  Naturally one would assign those centers first in a new numbering plan. Rotary dialing had nothing to do with it. Not a single publication even mentions dials, because the plan was not created for customer dialing. Yet, the articles go into great detail about other factors. Study the article; it has some of the relevant references.  kbrose (talk) 20:39, 30 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Are you really suggesting that I use Wikipedia as my primary source? Surely there are some primary source documents that support what you are saying - that position on the rotary dial had nothing to do area code assignments.  I spent an hour looking for a source that said anything different from what any of the articles I linked stated and could find none.  Perhaps there is a technical library that has minutes from meetings at AT&T when area codes were being discussed?  You're suggesting that I not use reliable primary sources as a source and go by unreferenced text and I find that problematic.
 * No, I am saying that you use primary sources to determine that rotary dialing was never mentioned, among other detailed explanations. And I am not suggesting your use a WP article as source, only read it and use the primary sources therein. When something is not a consideration, then there are hardly ever reliable sources that state that. They state the facts that were actually considered. They would not discuss aspects of rotary dials then, because nobody used or was going to use rotary dials for dialing area codes. At least not for a considerable time in the future, after it was determined that the numbering plan was good enough for direct distance dialing by subscribers. kbrose (talk) 23:16, 30 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Having said that, you said "the western part had a distinct toll routing infrastructure so that it was uneconomical to send traffic, for example from the Albany, NY, area, to Boston and then backhaul it to the western part of the state, on routes where the that traffic would collide with traffic to/from Boston." Where are you getting that from?  What is your source on that?  That seems closer to answering my question than anything.  Dbroer (talk) 21:02, 30 August 2023 (UTC)
 * This follows from detailed routing discussions in the primary sources quoted in the article about original area codes, and many examples of area code divisions confirm such decisions. Such back-haul problems are cited in the original papers, and it is the only logical factor for MA, with Springfield being a major Control Switching Point in the network. Another example, NJ was divided in 1956, not because of population growth but to separate toll traffic in the north (NYC suburbs) from that in the south (Philly area), as office code protection was in place until the 1960s so that the entire state could still use seven-digit dialing. So clearly it was routing that made the decision not population growth. To find the internal AT&T documentation today appears close to impossible, unless one is an insider perhaps. But the rules and discussions about the creation of the numbering plan are available in the public documents because they were shared with the independent telephone industry in journals. The only thing I am asking is not to use trival sources decades later that repeat assumption that have not been researched, and declare them as "reliable". The only thing that is reliable is that they were publish, indeed, but not their content. I can understand how people came to these conclusions, when only looking at NPA numbers and city sizes, without knowing anything else, but in the end the correlation is poor, and only good for a handful. We should be grateful for "exceptions" like 413, but there are many. kbrose (talk) 23:16, 30 August 2023 (UTC)
 * BTW, Boston, albeit a big city, was not a Regional Center in the General Toll Switching Plan, and so there was no good reason to prefer it for priority assignments. Its Regional Center was NYC. Other Regional Centers were Atlanta and Denver, and received preferential area codes (in the upper left corner of the table), but since those states had only one area code, they got the middle digit 0, not the "short" 1. But this really did not matter at the time, so the idea that the biggest city got short codes is only coincidental.  kbrose (talk) 00:38, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

Control switching points in 413


The data points in this Google Map come from the 1975 traffic routing guides by AT&T and from those the boundary between NPA 413 and 617 is drawn, albeit not well according to other drawings. I am inconclusive about including it in the article. kbrose (talk) 23:27, 30 August 2023 (UTC)