Merit Network
Can't find what you're looking for? Search the Mail Archives.
  About Merit   Services   Network   Resources & Support   Network Research   News   Events   Home

Discussion Communities: Merit Network Email List Archives

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: Robert Bonomi
  • Date: Thu Aug 18 15:14:38 2005

> Cc: <nanog@nanog.org>
> Subject: Re: New N.Y. Law Targets Hidden Net LD Tolls
> Date: Thu, 18 Aug 2005 12:53:43 -0500
> Thus spake "Robert Bonomi" <bonomi@mail.r-bonomi.com>
> > *NOT* "other people's fraud".  Just when you have 'intra-LATA' toll
> > charges for some numbers within a single area-code.  If the user is
> > on one side of the area-code, and the provider's POP is on the far
> > side of it, you can have a what appears to be a 'local' number, that
> > does incur non-trivial per-minute charges.  Without knowing _where_
> > a particular prefix is, you can't tell whether there will be toll charges
> > for that call, or not, from any given call origin.
>
> 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.

It also becomes 'utterly meaningless', when _all_ calls incur a usage 
("message units" or something similar) charge.  






Discussion Communities


About Merit | Services | Network | Resources & Support | Network Research
News | Events | Contact | Site Map | Merit Network Home


Merit Network, Inc.