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: Lou Katz
- Date: Fri Aug 19 17:12:16 2005
On Fri, Aug 19, 2005 at 02:20:59PM -0500, Stephen Sprunk wrote:
> Thus spake "Robert Bonomi" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
> [ 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.