North American Network Operators Group|
Date Prev | Date Next |
Date Index |
Thread Index |
Author Index |
Re: New N.Y. Law Targets Hidden Net LD Tolls
- From: Robert Bonomi
- Date: Thu Aug 18 15:14:38 2005
> Cc: <email@example.com>
> Subject: Re: New N.Y. Law Targets Hidden Net LD Tolls
> Date: Thu, 18 Aug 2005 12:53:43 -0500
> Thus spake "Robert Bonomi" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
> > *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.