Thus spake "Robert Bonomi" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
[ 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