Re: New N.Y. Law Targets Hidden Net LD Tolls
From owner-nanog@merit.edu Fri Aug 19 14:26:54 2005 From: "Stephen Sprunk" <stephen@sprunk.org> To: "Robert Bonomi" <bonomi@mail.r-bonomi.com> Cc: "North American Noise and Off-topic Gripes" <nanog@merit.edu> Subject: Re: New N.Y. Law Targets Hidden Net LD Tolls Date: Fri, 19 Aug 2005 14:20:59 -0500
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?
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 11D only)
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" prefixes.
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.,
On Sat, Aug 20, 2005 at 09:25:27AM -0500, Robert Bonomi wrote:
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.
here's a fairly big one: uunet public tech support 1-800-900-0241. -- Henry Yen Aegis Information Systems, Inc. Senior Systems Programmer Hicksville, New York
On Sat, 20 Aug 2005, Robert Bonomi wrote:
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.
Not really. Billable status of a call is known up front in today's all-digital NANPA coverage area (to my knowledge, the last mechanical and/or electromechanical switch disappeared before 2002, and it was somewhere in rural Quebec). In fact, I ran into a telco recently in a 10D/1+10D dialing area that -- only if the customer subscribed to the unlimited domestic LD plan -- allowed dialing any US number without the leading 1 as simply 10D. Conversely, some jurisdictions are very strict about use of the leading 1 to indicate toll status thanks to localized court cases establishing that "hidden" tolls are a Bad Thing. -- -- Todd Vierling <tv@duh.org> <tv@pobox.com> <todd@vierling.name>
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.
Not really. Billable status of a call is known up front in today's all-digital NANPA coverage area [...]
I had another (private, but informative) follow-up I wrote to send you, but since you're posting from an address not accepting mail from non-whitelisted senders, you've now wasted my time. (IMNSHO, you don't belong on public lists if you aren't willing to accept responses. We all appreciate e-mail cowards who want to speak but avoid listening.) -- -- Todd Vierling <tv@duh.org> <tv@pobox.com> <todd@vierling.name>
participants (3)
-
Henry Yen -
Robert Bonomi -
Todd Vierling