Talk:Local access and transport area
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
There's no article for Long distance ?! Egads. KeithTyler
[edit] Bismar(c)k
In my defense, that's exactly how the LERG data has it. Of course, that may very well be deliberate error. :( - [[User:KeithTyler|Keith D. Tyler [flame]]] 17:29, Nov 12, 2004 (UTC)
It was my understanding that LATAs are more based on population density rather than geographic area. That's why Wyoming despite its size is pretty much just one LATA while CA is composed of quite a number of LATAs. --rOckY 17:41, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Area codes and LATAs
How does this statement in this article: "Area codes and LATAs do not necessarily share boundaries; many LATAs exist in multiple area codes, and many area codes exist in multiple LATAs."
Square with the assertion in Area code 701: "Area code 701 is divided between the Bismarck LATA and the Fargo-Brainerd LATA; it is the only area code in the North American system to be broken into two LATAs."
"Many area codes exist in multiple LATAs" and "It is the only area code in the N.A. system to be broken into two LATAs" seem contradictory to me. Which one is correct? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Armchairlinguist (talk • contribs) 16:47, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
