Talk:Local access and transport area

	Telecommunication portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Telecommunications, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Telecommunications on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.TelecommunicationsWikipedia:WikiProject TelecommunicationsTemplate:WikiProject TelecommunicationsTelecommunications articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Columbia MO

Columbia MO is in Westphalia LATA noy lata 573 (it's NPA) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:C461:5CA0:74A8:3C10:FDBF:54F6 (talk) 14:47, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There's no article for Long distance ?! Egads. KeithTyler

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Kalispell

I edited this to reflect that LATA 963 no longer exists. It was originally created as a LATA-equivalent area (what the 900 series really refers to, since LATA is an antitrust construct only applicable where Bell Operating Companies exist). But it has been part of 648 for some years (I don't know how far back, probably mid-1990s). user:isdnip 7 September 2008 —Preceding unsigned comment added by (isdnip) 02:43, 8 September 2008 (UTC) I edited it back in. For some reason I had gotten logged out and lost the sig last time.Isdnip (talk) 03:23, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nevada

Alpine entry under Nevada is wrong. Alpine, CA is clearly in San Diego LATA 732. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.192.158.251 (talk) 08:32, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

LATAs and exchange code protection

Quite a few individual area code articles, such as the codes with local calling into area code 202, make claims that some large quantity of numbers or exchange prefixes couldn't be assigned because the area code is one particular LATA (for instance, College Park MD and Arlington VA are Washington DC LATA). There is no cited source for any of these claims, and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Telecommunications is dead so I get no reply if I ask there... why should LATAs (as opposed to exchange code protection schemes and seven-digit calling) restrict the re-use of a prefix in some other area code? K7L (talk) 03:24, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]