Re: New N.Y. Law Targets Hidden Net LD Tolls
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.
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.
Oh, it works technically, local is 10D, toll is 1+10D, but since they don't have permissive dialing, Texans have to memorize lists of local prefixes in order to be able to use their phones. Way to go. I agree that life would be simpler if there were some straightforward way to ask telcos whether a call from a->b was local or toll. R's, John
John Levine wrote:
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.
Oh, it works technically, local is 10D, toll is 1+10D, but since they don't have permissive dialing, Texans have to memorize lists of local prefixes in order to be able to use their phones. Way to go.
I agree that life would be simpler if there were some straightforward way to ask telcos whether a call from a->b was local or toll.
R's, John
Part of the problem is EAS (Extended Area Service), where for a flat rate (anywhere from $3-$13 that I've seen) your "local calling area" is greatly increased. The problem is that if you don't get the flat rate plan, it's a toll charge... all without having to dial the 1- (everything here is already 10D). Fortunately we are part of a local phone company, so checking on the EAS status of customers and making sure they get the appropriate numbers is easy. But we still make mistakes - and I'm sure it's very easy for other ISPs to give a new customer a number that's just in the "big city" next door (around 5-10 miles away), but is an EAS toll call. Personally I think they ought to make flat rate EAS mandatory and just roll the cost into the phone bill. -- Jeff Shultz
Can't one still get minimal phone service which charges a toll on every phone call? I know this used to cost like $5/mo but I think they eliminated it in MA a few years ago, or made it hardship-only. Simple business lines here normally charge for every phone call, 1MB as they're called, MB = Measured Business tho I guess that's not what Spitzer was concerned with. But that's a big part of the problem, the telcos don't make this information readily available in a form ISPs can use, and even if they did it'd depend on the specific service option the customer had. In our experience customers don't generally know what phone service they have in any useful way (such as the exact name the telco calls it, circle dialing, metro calling, etc.) And boy howdy we've tried to help, motivated by the occasional livid customer who got an unexpectedly large bill. We've had a warning just like the one suggested on our pick a number since before some list members here were born. In my not insignificant experience there's some VP inside every RBOC cackling madly over the revenues generated by this confusion. And, no, don't give me the old "don't attribute to malice what can be adequately explained by stupidity." Double-digit billion $$ companies don't make universal, big revenue generating mistakes over a period of probably 50 years with no doubt millions of complaints (not just ISP dialing) out of "stupidity". Such confusion is their stock in trade. And I suspect that's, as Paul Harvey used to say, "The rest of the story". Spitzer's office must have tried to look into why ISPs et al can't just make a reasonably accurate suggestion to customers looking for a phone number and, upon querying the telcos, was met with a big: hahahahahahaha yeah, right! It's too obvious to have possibly been missed. -- -Barry Shein Software Tool & Die | bzs@TheWorld.com | http://www.TheWorld.com Purveyors to the Trade | Voice: 617-739-0202 | Login: 617-739-WRLD The World | Public Access Internet | Since 1989 *oo*
On 8/19/2005 12:41 PM, John Levine wrote:
I agree that life would be simpler if there were some straightforward way to ask telcos whether a call from a->b was local or toll.
As I remember Tennessee's rules, the PSC requirement was that every adjacent county was to be considered local. Area codes could usually cover multiple counties, but you usually know what city your calling destination is in. With ISP dial-in numbers, you might not, but that's pretty much the exception. -- Eric A. Hall http://www.ehsco.com/ Internet Core Protocols http://www.oreilly.com/catalog/coreprot/
As I remember Tennessee's rules, the PSC requirement was that every adjacent county was to be considered local.
Area codes could usually cover multiple counties, but you usually know what city your calling destination is in. With ISP dial-in numbers, you might not, but that's pretty much the exception.
Exchange boundaries rarely match municipal boundaries, and there are a whole bunch of arcane special cases like the one in Vermont that a call to your town hall must be local. That's why it would be nice to be able to query the billing database that really knows. Regards, John Levine, johnl@iecc.com, Primary Perpetrator of "The Internet for Dummies", Information Superhighwayman wanna-be, http://iecc.com/johnl, Mayor "I dropped the toothpaste", said Tom, crestfallenly.
Thus spake "Robert Bonomi" <bonomi@mail.r-bonomi.com> [ 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? 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. Such a tactic is only needed during the transition from 7D to 10D local dialing, which happened here a decade ago. For the same reason, we no longer have an excuse for not using 0XX, 1XX, and X11 as prefixes. 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.
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. The Dallas local (not "metro" or "extended") calling area is about 20mi in radius, covering several million people; Houston's is about the same. Our monthly rates are just as low as the rest of the country (if not lower), yet the ILECs still rake in money like clockwork. S Stephen Sprunk "Those people who think they know everything CCIE #3723 are a great annoyance to those of us who do." K5SSS --Isaac Asimov
On Fri, Aug 19, 2005 at 02:20:59PM -0500, Stephen Sprunk wrote:
Thus spake "Robert Bonomi" <bonomi@mail.r-bonomi.com> [ 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. Fooey. -- -=[L]=-
participants (8)
-
Barry Shein -
Eric A. Hall -
Jeff Shultz -
John Levine -
John R Levine
-
Lou Katz -
Robert Bonomi -
Stephen Sprunk