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: Sat Aug 20 10:26:17 2005
> From firstname.lastname@example.org Fri Aug 19 14:26:54 2005
> From: "Stephen Sprunk" <email@example.com>
> To: "Robert Bonomi" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
> Cc: "North American Noise and Off-topic Gripes" <email@example.com>
> Subject: Re: New N.Y. Law Targets Hidden Net LD Tolls
> Date: Fri, 19 Aug 2005 14:20:59 -0500
> 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?
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
> 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"
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.,