|
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
> From [email protected] Fri Aug 19 14:26:54 2005 > From: "Stephen Sprunk" <[email protected]> > To: "Robert Bonomi" <[email protected]> > Cc: "North American Noise and Off-topic Gripes" <[email protected]> > Subject: Re: New N.Y. Law Targets Hidden Net LD Tolls > Date: Fri, 19 Aug 2005 14:20:59 -0500 > > > 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? All well and good. *UNTIL* you get assigned an NXX NPA that is _already_ in use as a prefix. 773, 847, and 630 were _all_ in use as prefixes within the 312 area-code (and in the split-off 708 areacode as well) before those sequences were "legal" as an area-code. "Now What?" applies. <wry grin> > > That isn't even necessary, though; if 214-817 existed, there's no way of > confusing it with 817-xxx because all calls are either 10D or 11D. Maybe in *your* territory. :) In 312/708/630/847/773/224, dialing patterns are 7D or 11D ( 847/224 is 11D only) > Such a > tactic is only needed during the transition from 7D to 10D local dialing, > which happened here a decade ago. Lots of places have *NOT* made that transition. It is fairly _expensive_ for the telcos to implement. > For the same reason, we no longer have an excuse for not using 0XX, 1XX, and > X11 as prefixes. "Speak for yourself, John" applies. _Mandatory_ 10D dialing does *not* exist (yet) in *many* areas Mandatory 10D dialing does have non-trivial costs associated with it -- both to the telco, and to the customers thereof. There _is_ a significant performance issue -- and directly related increased costs -- in supporting mixed 7D and 10D dialing. To use 1+ for "toll alerting", in locales where intra-NPA can be toll, and inter-NPA can be local, you have to incur one of those sets of increased expenses. And the 'inconveniences' to the customer. It is a trade-off as to which is 'worse' for the customer. <wry grin> Different utility commissions have decided that issue in different ways. > We're already using [2-7]00 prefixes, but I'm not > surprised we don't yet (AFAICT) have 800 and 900 prefixes. We could > probably drop an entire area code if they started assigning those "reserved" > prefixes. 1-800-800, at least, has been in use for a number of years. and I'm pretty sure I've seen 1-800-900 numbers. > > It also becomes 'utterly meaningless', when _all_ calls incur a usage > > ("message units" or something similar) charge. > > Our PUC would be thrown out on their heads if they suggested that was even > an option; I'd suggest you look a little closer at your own and possibly do > some lobbying. You need a more cosmopolitian view -- This scheme has been in effect for 20 years, locally. *NO* chance of getting it reversed. In other major metro areas something very similar has been in effect for much longer. Most big-city systems have charged on such a basis for a long time now.,
|