North American Network Operators Group|
Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical
Re: New N.Y. Law Targets Hidden Net LD Tolls
> 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.