|
North American Network Operators Group Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical Re: New N.Y. Law Targets Hidden Net LD Tolls
On Fri, Aug 19, 2005 at 02:20:59PM -0500, Stephen Sprunk wrote: > > Thus spake "Robert Bonomi" <[email protected]> > [ attribution to me missing ] > >>That's why some states (e.g. Texas) require that all toll calls be > >>dialed as 1+ _regardless of area code_, and local calls cannot be > >>dialed as 1+. If you dial a number wrong, you get a message telling > >>you how to do it properly (and why). > > > >In some places that "solution" is _not_practical_. As in where the same > >three digit sequence is in use as a C.O. 'prefix', *and* as an areacode. > >(an where, in some 'perverse' situations, the foreign area-code is a > >'non-toll' call, yet the bare prefix within the areacode is a toll call. > > We don't have that problem because all nearby area codes are reserved as > prefixes. For instance, if 214 and 817 are nearby, there exist no 214-817 > or 817-214 numbers (or 214-214 or 817-817). Duh? > Not here! I have a 510-530-887X number. They assigned 530 as an area code to an area around Sacramento, not far from here. That region uses the 887 prefix, so I get LOTS of wrong numbers where they forgot to dial the 1. Fooey. -- -=[L]=-
|