Re: New N.Y. Law Targets Hidden Net LD Tolls

[Lou Katz <lou () metron com>]

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]=-