Re: New N.Y. Law Targets Hidden Net LD Tolls
(hoping this is still somewhat ontopic, should be much more ontopic than my last reply was) Robert Bonomi wrote: Authoritative answer: Maybe. Usually. Depends on the locale, the state regulators, and the phone company. Frequently called Lifeline service, when marketed for the elderly, disabled, etc. No, that's wrong. Lifeline service can be flat rate too, it's for people who for whatever reason can't afford normal phone service (you must meet certain income requirements). -- Steve Sobol, Professional Geek 888-480-4638 PGP: 0xE3AE35ED Company website: http://JustThe.net/ Personal blog, resume, portfolio: http://SteveSobol.com/ E: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Snail: 22674 Motnocab Road, Apple Valley, CA 92307
Re: New N.Y. Law Targets Hidden Net LD Tolls
From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Fri Aug 19 14:26:54 2005 From: Stephen Sprunk [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Robert Bonomi [EMAIL PROTECTED] 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 [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? 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.,
Re: New N.Y. Law Targets Hidden Net LD Tolls
From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Fri Aug 19 14:37:28 2005 From: Barry Shein [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Fri, 19 Aug 2005 15:31:42 -0400 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: New N.Y. Law Targets Hidden Net LD Tolls 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. Authoritative answer: Maybe. Depends on the locale, the state regulators, and the phone company. Frequently called Lifeline service, when marketed for the elderly, disabled, etc. Also called measured zero -- when offered to the general public (for the 'cheap SOB' customer) 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.) I've had an ILEC refuse to tell me (a CLEC customer) where _their_ rate center for my numbers was. That it was 'proprietary' information that they would not release to non-customers. Never mind the fact that the reason I wanted it, was to give it to those of *their* customers who were, incidentally, also my customers. 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. It *is* definitely 'good business practice' to supply such advice to double check the suggested number. I question the _requirement_ -- and penalties for failure -- to do so. The area transit authority publishes a _single_ 7-digit number that you can call from anywere in the 6 NPA region they service to get travel information. For large portions of the territory dialing that 'same NPA' number results in a pricey INTRA-LATA toll call. For a differently- delimited large area, dialing a different NPA, and then that 7-digits gets you a much _less_expensive_ call to an apparent destination that is (apparently, based on the rates) much 'closer to home'. Why isn't the gov't requiring *them* to run a similar disclaimer -- and with severe penalties for non-compliance -- on all their materials listing that number? 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. It is *definitely* not stupidity. In the case mentioned above, the ILEC was handing calls off to the CLEC at points away from where the 'nearest' ILEC-CLEC inter-connect to the CLEC POP was. Calls to lines that were only a few dozens of numbers apart were being routed through _different_ tie-points, with *different* costs to the caller. 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| [EMAIL PROTECTED] | http://www.TheWorld.com Purveyors to the Trade | Voice: 617-739-0202| Login: 617-739-WRLD The World | Public Access Internet | Since 1989 *oo*
Re: New N.Y. Law Targets Hidden Net LD Tolls
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
Re: New N.Y. Law Targets Hidden Net LD Tolls
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 [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: New N.Y. Law Targets Hidden Net LD Tolls
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, [EMAIL PROTECTED], Primary Perpetrator of The Internet for Dummies, Information Superhighwayman wanna-be, http://iecc.com/johnl, Mayor I dropped the toothpaste, said Tom, crestfallenly.
Re: New N.Y. Law Targets Hidden Net LD Tolls
Face it, 7D is dead; and even if overlays had not arrived, cell phones would have killed it. Once you learn to think 10D, it's trivial. Oh, you ignorant rednecks.* Even my cell phone has 7D dialing and it'll be a century before overlays arrive where I live. The reason that it makes sense for an ISP to warn its customers about surprise toll calls is that toll rates have gotten so low that for the most part, we don't worry about them. Due to the peculiar telegeography in my area, a 7D call within my area code could be local, intra-LATA toll, or inter-LATA toll. But the most expensive of those is 8 cents/min so for voice calls, I don't care, and I really appreciate not having the insane Texas plan where you have to memorize every single local prefix to be able to make a fripping phone call. Since ISP calls are long, even low toll rates add up, and that makes them unusual enough to be worth warning people. I really have to put some of the blame on telcos here. Every prefix in the country is assigned to a rate center, every phone has a set of rate centers that are local, and it's not rocket science to do the cross-product and tell people what numbers are local to them. CLEC or ILEC doesn't matter, nor does the location of the switch. I realize there are a few wacky prefixes that are local to the whole LATA, but they seem to be getting less common rather than more, and there's few enough of them to special case. R's, John * - from small towns along the MD/VA border that combine northern charm with southern efficiency
Re: New N.Y. Law Targets Hidden Net LD Tolls
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
Re: New N.Y. Law Targets Hidden Net LD Tolls
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], John Levine writes: Face it, 7D is dead; and even if overlays had not arrived, cell phones would have killed it. Once you learn to think 10D, it's trivial. Oh, you ignorant rednecks.* Even my cell phone has 7D dialing Mine doesn't -- ATT Wireless and Cingular GSM phones have 10D or 11D only, at least around here. --Steven M. Bellovin, http://www.cs.columbia.edu/~smb
Re: New N.Y. Law Targets Hidden Net LD Tolls
John Levine wrote: Face it, 7D is dead; and even if overlays had not arrived, cell phones would have killed it. Once you learn to think 10D, it's trivial. Oh, you ignorant rednecks.* Even my cell phone has 7D dialing and it'll be a century before overlays arrive where I live. The reason that it makes sense for an ISP to warn its customers about surprise toll calls is that toll rates have gotten so low that for the most part, we don't worry about them. Due to the peculiar telegeography in my area, a 7D call within my area code could be local, intra-LATA toll, or inter-LATA toll. But the most expensive of those is 8 cents/min so for voice calls, I don't care, and I really Duh. I pay less for an international trans-atlantic call for premium voice minutes in retail (US$0.04/minute). Wholesale I get the same minute for less than 2 cents (US$). A 64kbit/s transparent ISDN call on the same path costs 3 cents (US$). And I'm in Switzerland. So it seems to be cheaper for me to call you than it is for you to call someone in the next LATA. -- Andre
Re: New N.Y. Law Targets Hidden Net LD Tolls
On Fri, Aug 19, 2005 at 07:29:44PM +0200, Andre Oppermann wrote: John Levine wrote: Face it, 7D is dead; and even if overlays had not arrived, cell phones would have killed it. Once you learn to think 10D, it's trivial. Oh, you ignorant rednecks.* Even my cell phone has 7D dialing and it'll be a century before overlays arrive where I live. The reason that it makes sense for an ISP to warn its customers about surprise toll calls is that toll rates have gotten so low that for the most part, we don't worry about them. Due to the peculiar telegeography in my area, a 7D call within my area code could be local, intra-LATA toll, or inter-LATA toll. But the most expensive of those is 8 cents/min so for voice calls, I don't care, and I really Duh. I pay less for an international trans-atlantic call for premium voice minutes in retail (US$0.04/minute). Wholesale I get the same minute for less than 2 cents (US$). A 64kbit/s transparent ISDN call on the same path costs 3 cents (US$). And I'm in Switzerland. So it seems to be cheaper for me to call you than it is for you to call someone in the next LATA. And people wonder why the ILECs are sitting on fat wads of cash? I can get US48 LD for $.02/min. I've found it cheaper sending calls this way then paying for an unlimited plan. Most people in the US can get unlimited LD plans on their POTS service for around $60/mo (with most taxes, etc... included). Regular POTS service can be had for around $14/mo (no frills, no dtmf, etc..) around here at the most cut rate discount plans. When i cancelled my Vonage service, they were willing to to offer me service for $5 or $6/mo to keep me as a customer. I've found that connecting directly to the PSTN via POTS to be quite expensive compared to most of the alternatives out there, I think it's only a matter of time before one of the ILECS (probally one of the non-major CO-OPs or consortiums) switches over to unlimited domestic plans to capture the LD, as most people don't use enough on an unlimited plan to justify it. - jared -- Jared Mauch | pgp key available via finger from [EMAIL PROTECTED] clue++; | http://puck.nether.net/~jared/ My statements are only mine.
Re: New N.Y. Law Targets Hidden Net LD Tolls
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
Re: New N.Y. Law Targets Hidden Net LD Tolls
Thus spake Steven M. Bellovin [EMAIL PROTECTED] In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], John Levine writes: Oh, you ignorant rednecks.* Even my cell phone has 7D dialing Mine doesn't -- ATT Wireless and Cingular GSM phones have 10D or 11D only, at least around here. My T-Mobile GSM phone allows 10D, 11D, or E.164 anywhere in the US and Canada, but I've noticed I can dial 7D in most places that have a single area code. 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
Re: New N.Y. Law Targets Hidden Net LD Tolls
On Fri, 19 Aug 2005, Steven M. Bellovin wrote: Mine doesn't -- ATT Wireless and Cingular GSM phones have 10D or 11D only, at least around here. Leave it up to Cingular to be stupid. :P I've been a customer of Alltel, Northcoast PCS, Sprint PCS and now T-Mobile, and the old GTE Wireless dating back to '93. On none of those carriers have I ever been forced to dial 10D if I wasn't roaming, and if I was dialing a number in the same area code my cellphone number was in. IOW, I'm pretty sure they're the only company doing that, though ICBW. -- Steve Sobol, Professional Geek 888-480-4638 PGP: 0xE3AE35ED Company website: http://JustThe.net/ Personal blog, resume, portfolio: http://SteveSobol.com/ E: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Snail: 22674 Motnocab Road, Apple Valley, CA 92307
Re: New N.Y. Law Targets Hidden Net LD Tolls
Thus spake John Levine [EMAIL PROTECTED] Face it, 7D is dead; and even if overlays had not arrived, cell phones would have killed it. Once you learn to think 10D, it's trivial. Oh, you ignorant rednecks.* Even my cell phone has 7D dialing and it'll be a century before overlays arrive where I live. Great. Store 7D numbers in your phone's directory and drive a few hours in any direction; see if they still work. _That_ is why mobile phones are killing off 7D, not because of dialing patterns or overlays. I really appreciate not having the insane Texas plan where you have to memorize every single local prefix to be able to make a fripping phone call. When you have seven nearby area codes (like I do), and parts of each of them can be local or toll, there's no hope of memorizing prefixes. You guess based on the distance, and you either get through or a recording tells you that you guessed wrong. If you thought a number was local and it turns out to be toll, that may make you think twice about whether you need to find a closer number or perhaps not talk as long. I find it to be nuts that some places have 7D toll calls and 11D local calls; how can you have any clue what (if anything) you're paying without calling the operator? Back before CLECs, SWB's phone books had a map with the prefixes assigned to each exchange and rules to determine if a call was local or toll. Now, with ten times as many prefixes per exchange (and several possible area codes for each) and new prefixes being added every week, that's simply not practical anymore. 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
Re: New N.Y. Law Targets Hidden Net LD Tolls
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
Re: New N.Y. Law Targets Hidden Net LD Tolls
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| [EMAIL PROTECTED] | http://www.TheWorld.com Purveyors to the Trade | Voice: 617-739-0202| Login: 617-739-WRLD The World | Public Access Internet | Since 1989 *oo*
Re: New N.Y. Law Targets Hidden Net LD Tolls
On Fri, Aug 19, 2005 at 03:15:11PM -0400, Steven J. Sobol wrote: On Fri, 19 Aug 2005, Steven M. Bellovin wrote: Mine doesn't -- ATT Wireless and Cingular GSM phones have 10D or 11D only, at least around here. Leave it up to Cingular to be stupid. :P I've been a customer of Alltel, Northcoast PCS, Sprint PCS and now T-Mobile, and the old GTE Wireless dating back to '93. On none of those carriers have I ever been forced to dial 10D if I wasn't roaming, and if I was dialing a number in the same area code my cellphone number was in. IOW, I'm pretty sure they're the only company doing that, though ICBW. I hang out in telecom circles, and I have no datapoints suggesting that cellular carriers are requiring or moving to requiring 10D for local calling, though Stan Cline (roamer1) would be the guy to ask. This is, of course, OT of the OT thread about ISP dialing. I would observe that there's a fairly obvious mnemonic to 7D (the same area code as my own number), but Steve's already gonna yell at me for posting on this thread, so... Cheers, -- jra -- Jay R. Ashworth[EMAIL PROTECTED] Designer+-Internetworking--+--+ RFC 2100 Ashworth Associates | Best Practices Wiki | |'87 e24 St Petersburg FL USAhttp://bestpractices.wikicities.com+1 727 647 1274 If you can read this... thank a system administrator. Or two. --me
Re: New N.Y. Law Targets Hidden Net LD Tolls
On Fri, 19 Aug 2005, Stephen Sprunk wrote: When you have seven nearby area codes (like I do), and parts of each of them can be local or toll, there's no hope of memorizing prefixes. You guess based on the distance, and you either get through or a recording tells you that you guessed wrong. Here in Atlanta, the local calling area is a huge ellipse-like shape with a wide radius of something like 100 miles, entirely containing four NPAs (404, 678, 770, and the inactive[*] 470), and with access to edge-touching prefixes in three others (256, 478, and 706). 10D dialing for local calls has been around for some time, and is standardized to the point of locals regularly using shorthand for NPA (4/XXX- is 404; 7/XXX- is 770). 1+10D is always used for toll calls, and you get an intercept recording if you guessed wrong about the leading 1. (Ref: http://members.dandy.net/~czg/lca_exch.php?exch=032460 ) I've found the overlay scheme to be so much more straightforward; 10D numbers are constant length and proper detection about use of leading 1 keeps unintended tolls out of the way. I find it to be nuts that some places have 7D toll calls and 11D local calls; how can you have any clue what (if anything) you're paying without calling the operator? You don't easily. And the worst part is, the dialing pattern varies even more wildly throughout the US. NANPA keeps a record of these patterns: http://www.nanpa.com/npa/allnpas.zip (*cough* Access database with comprehensive info) http://www.nanpa.com/nas/public/npasRequiring10DigitReport.do?method=displayNpasRequiring10DigitReport (NPAs requiring 10D local dialing, with appreviated details) -- -- Todd Vierling [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: New N.Y. Law Targets Hidden Net LD Tolls
On Fri, Aug 19, 2005 at 02:20:59PM -0500, Stephen Sprunk wrote: 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? 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]=-
Re: New N.Y. Law Targets Hidden Net LD Tolls
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. Hallhttp://www.ehsco.com/ Internet Core Protocols http://www.oreilly.com/catalog/coreprot/
Re: New N.Y. Law Targets Hidden Net LD Tolls
On 8/17/2005 10:04 PM, Fergie (Paul Ferguson) wrote: A new law that's apparently the first in the nation threatens to penalize Internet service providers that fail to warn users that some dial-up numbers can ring up enormous long-distance phone bills even though they appear local. aka, make ISPs liable for other people's fraud. What's the thinking here, anybody know? -- Eric A. Hallhttp://www.ehsco.com/ Internet Core Protocols http://www.oreilly.com/catalog/coreprot/
Re: New N.Y. Law Targets Hidden Net LD Tolls
On Thu, Aug 18, 2005 at 02:44:59AM -0400, Eric A. Hall wrote: On 8/17/2005 10:04 PM, Fergie (Paul Ferguson) wrote: A new law that's apparently the first in the nation threatens to penalize Internet service providers that fail to warn users that some dial-up numbers can ring up enormous long-distance phone bills even though they appear local. aka, make ISPs liable for other people's fraud. What's the thinking here, anybody know? Erm... Requiring that ISPs notify customers that phone numbers in the same area code may not be local has WHAT exactly to do with making ISPs liable for other people's fraud? Sounds like a disclaimer requirement to me, nothing related to fraud just good business practice. You must be confusing this with exotic 900# and international locations which are used to scam people. -- Richard A Steenbergen [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.e-gerbil.net/ras GPG Key ID: 0xF8B12CBC (7535 7F59 8204 ED1F CC1C 53AF 4C41 5ECA F8B1 2CBC)
Re: New N.Y. Law Targets Hidden Net LD Tolls
On 8/18/2005 2:59 AM, Richard A Steenbergen wrote: On Thu, Aug 18, 2005 at 02:44:59AM -0400, Eric A. Hall wrote: On 8/17/2005 10:04 PM, Fergie (Paul Ferguson) wrote: A new law that's apparently the first in the nation threatens to penalize Internet service providers that fail to warn users that some dial-up numbers can ring up enormous long-distance phone bills even though they appear local. aka, make ISPs liable for other people's fraud. What's the thinking here, anybody know? Erm... Requiring that ISPs notify customers that phone numbers in the same area code may not be local has WHAT exactly to do with making ISPs liable for other people's fraud? If there's a penalty for failing to ~adequately track and notify customers then that's a liability, by definition. Seems to me the appropriate response is for the AG office to pursue the people who are running the toll scams, not to push enforcement out to uninvolved third parties. Having dealt with AGs in the past, I know that's just whistling dixie, but still the notion of introducing liability is kind of spooky. -- Eric A. Hallhttp://www.ehsco.com/ Internet Core Protocols http://www.oreilly.com/catalog/coreprot/
Re: New N.Y. Law Targets Hidden Net LD Tolls
On Thu, Aug 18, 2005 at 12:19:25AM -0700, William C. Devine II wrote: Just about all of the ISP's in my area, even those I've worked for, had a 'disclaimer' on their user agreement that said that some of the local phone numbers might be long distance and that the user should call the operator to verify it is a local call before placing the call. Is that warning enough, or are they saying the ISP must keep a database of users' addresses and specifically warn that user that out of the 10 local call-in numbers, based on their zip code, these three (A, B, C) could be long distance? To quote the original pasted article: Consumers, however, must act on the warning that Internet providers must soon post by contacting their phone companies to find out whether a number is truly local. Many service providers already post such warnings. America Online Inc. agreed to do so in 1989, while the New York Attorney General's Office in 2001 secured similar agreements with 25 New York-based Internet providers including ATT Worldnet. Sounds like the standard notice that all reputable ISPs are probably already giving. Given the very real potential for grandma and grandpa to pick a number off a list which looks like it is in their area code and end up with a multi-thousand dollar phone bill the next month, I'm surprised consumer protection folks haven't asked for such a requirement sooner. On Thu, Aug 18, 2005 at 03:07:57AM -0400, Eric A. Hall wrote: Seems to me the appropriate response is for the AG office to pursue the people who are running the toll scams, not to push enforcement out to uninvolved third parties. Having dealt with AGs in the past, I know that's just whistling dixie, but still the notion of introducing liability is kind of spooky. I'm not sure which part of this seems to have nothing to do with toll scams wasn't clear the first time around, but this response still seems to have no basis given the facts... -- Richard A Steenbergen [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.e-gerbil.net/ras GPG Key ID: 0xF8B12CBC (7535 7F59 8204 ED1F CC1C 53AF 4C41 5ECA F8B1 2CBC)
Re: New N.Y. Law Targets Hidden Net LD Tolls
On Thu, 18 Aug 2005, Richard A Steenbergen wrote: Sounds like the standard notice that all reputable ISPs are probably already giving. Given the very real potential for grandma and grandpa to pick a number off a list which looks like it is in their area code and end up with a multi-thousand dollar phone bill the next month, I'm surprised consumer protection folks haven't asked for such a requirement sooner. I assume the NY AG will also be targeting enforcement of Domino's Pizza because they have lots of phone numbers and consumers may unknowingly dial a phone number to order a pizza which may be a toll call in their area.
Re: New N.Y. Law Targets Hidden Net LD Tolls
On Thu, Aug 18, 2005 at 04:05:30AM -0400, Sean Donelan wrote: On Thu, 18 Aug 2005, Richard A Steenbergen wrote: Sounds like the standard notice that all reputable ISPs are probably already giving. Given the very real potential for grandma and grandpa to pick a number off a list which looks like it is in their area code and end up with a multi-thousand dollar phone bill the next month, I'm surprised consumer protection folks haven't asked for such a requirement sooner. I assume the NY AG will also be targeting enforcement of Domino's Pizza because they have lots of phone numbers and consumers may unknowingly dial a phone number to order a pizza which may be a toll call in their area. If we're making silly comparisons now, sure. Ordering Domino's from a long distance number is not the kind of activity where an innocent and unsuspecting person can accidentally run up thousands of dollars in charges which they may know nothing about until the next month's phone bill arrives, for something that they had a (semi)reasonable expectation to be free. Besides, I don't know if you've ever had the problem of living a block away from where the magic cutoff line for delivery is, but you can barely get those guys to deliver within evan a few miles let alone outside your local calling region. -- Richard A Steenbergen [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.e-gerbil.net/ras GPG Key ID: 0xF8B12CBC (7535 7F59 8204 ED1F CC1C 53AF 4C41 5ECA F8B1 2CBC)
Re: New N.Y. Law Targets Hidden Net LD Tolls
On 8/18/2005 3:54 AM, Richard A Steenbergen wrote: I'm not sure which part of this seems to have nothing to do with toll scams wasn't clear the first time around, but this response still seems to have no basis given the facts... Is the NY AG authorized to regulate other-than illegal activity? -- Eric A. Hallhttp://www.ehsco.com/ Internet Core Protocols http://www.oreilly.com/catalog/coreprot/
Re: New N.Y. Law Targets Hidden Net LD Tolls
Sean, I assume the NY AG will also be targeting enforcement of Domino's Pizza because they have lots of phone numbers and consumers may unknowingly dial a phone number to order a pizza which may be a toll call in their area. Somehow I don't think so. It takes maybe 5 minutes to order a pizza from Domino's (you can also order from www.dominos.com) unless your really indecisive. However, surfing the Internet, could take considerably longer (especially for power-users like us).
Re: New N.Y. Law Targets Hidden Net LD Tolls
Sean, I assume the NY AG will also be targeting enforcement of Domino's Pizza because they have lots of phone numbers and consumers may unknowingly dial a phone number to order a pizza which may be a toll call in their area. Somehow I don't think so. It takes maybe 5 minutes to order a pizza from Domino's (you can also order from www.dominos.com) unless your really indecisive. However, surfing the Internet, could take considerably longer (especially for power-users like us).
Re: New N.Y. Law Targets Hidden Net LD Tolls
Sean, I assume the NY AG will also be targeting enforcement of Domino's Pizza because they have lots of phone numbers and consumers may unknowingly dial a phone number to order a pizza which may be a toll call in their area. Somehow I don't think so. It takes maybe 5 minutes to order a pizza from Domino's (you can also order from www.dominos.com) unless your really indecisive. However, surfing the Internet, could take considerably longer (especially for power-users like us).
Re: New N.Y. Law Targets Hidden Net LD Tolls
On Thu, Aug 18, 2005 at 04:19:25AM -0400, Eric A. Hall wrote: On 8/18/2005 3:54 AM, Richard A Steenbergen wrote: I'm not sure which part of this seems to have nothing to do with toll scams wasn't clear the first time around, but this response still seems to have no basis given the facts... Is the NY AG authorized to regulate other-than illegal activity? Well for starters, yes. http://www.oag.state.ny.us/tour/tour.html Note the Criminal Division and Division of Public Advocacy. Another interesting link: http://www.oag.state.ny.us/internet/internet.html But even ignoring that part for now, the only reference to the AG in the article cited is that they secured an agreement with 25 large providers in 2001 to include a notice/disclaimer to consumers. Why am I the only person who is capable of reading the article in question before commenting on NANOG? :) -- Richard A Steenbergen [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.e-gerbil.net/ras GPG Key ID: 0xF8B12CBC (7535 7F59 8204 ED1F CC1C 53AF 4C41 5ECA F8B1 2CBC)
Apologies for Triple Post - Re: New N.Y. Law Targets Hidden Net LD Tolls
Apologies on the triple post. Mea Culpa. -- Jonathan M. Slivko Systems Administrator/Consultant Simpli Networks 646.461.6489 direct 208.330.8412 fax www.simplinetworks.com http://www.simplinetworks.com/ CONFIDENTIALITY: This e-mail and any attachments are confidential and may be privileged. If you are not a named recipient, please notify the sender immediately and do not disclose the contents to another person, use it for any purpose, or store or copy the information in any medium. - Original Message - From: Jonathan M. Slivko [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Sean Donelan [EMAIL PROTECTED]; nanog@merit.edu Sent: Thursday, August 18, 2005 4:27 AM Subject: Re: New N.Y. Law Targets Hidden Net LD Tolls Sean, I assume the NY AG will also be targeting enforcement of Domino's Pizza because they have lots of phone numbers and consumers may unknowingly dial a phone number to order a pizza which may be a toll call in their area. Somehow I don't think so. It takes maybe 5 minutes to order a pizza from Domino's (you can also order from www.dominos.com) unless your really indecisive. However, surfing the Internet, could take considerably longer (especially for power-users like us).
Re: New N.Y. Law Targets Hidden Net LD Tolls
On Thu, 18 Aug 2005, Jonathan M. Slivko wrote: I assume the NY AG will also be targeting enforcement of Domino's Pizza because they have lots of phone numbers and consumers may unknowingly dial a phone number to order a pizza which may be a toll call in their area. Somehow I don't think so. It takes maybe 5 minutes to order a pizza from Domino's (you can also order from www.dominos.com) unless your really indecisive. However, surfing the Internet, could take considerably longer (especially for power-users like us). Those pennies can add up. And if you have ever called a government office, you can sometimes spend a long time listening to music on hold. Does the NY State Goverment warning citizens they may be charged for phone calls to government offices? This is one of those feel good laws that doesn't actually change anything.
Re: New N.Y. Law Targets Hidden Net LD Tolls
Those pennies can add up. And if you have ever called a government office, you can sometimes spend a long time listening to music on hold. Does the NY State Goverment warning citizens they may be charged for phone calls to government offices? I'm not sure if that's the same thing - since usually they are either local offices (broken up by district within a city) or a toll free national number to Albany or some other call center. As far as your Those pennies can add up statement - I agree. But not to the same degree as an Internet surfer. You would have to make ALOT of calls to Dominos in order to match up to an Internet users bill. As an aside, while I was travelling outside the US on my T-Mobile phone (roaming), as soon as I landed in the airport and turned my phone on - I got a text message from the local cell carrier saying that I can dial 611 and 123 just as if I was home. However, what they DON'T tell you is that your going to be charged international roaming rates for that call - even if your calling your home customer service. That's something that the NY AG should go after, not this and at $3/min, it's a bigger nuiscance and a bigger bill in a shorter ammount of time. Something definately doesn't smell right - oh, and btw, that includes calls to the roaming carriers customer service department too. Go figure. This is one of those feel good laws that doesn't actually change anything. 100% agreed - there's more pressing matters that needs to be taken care of first. (N.B. I'm actually a resident of New York State)
Re: New N.Y. Law Targets Hidden Net LD Tolls
On Thu, 18 Aug 2005, Richard A Steenbergen wrote: On Thu, Aug 18, 2005 at 02:44:59AM -0400, Eric A. Hall wrote: On 8/17/2005 10:04 PM, Fergie (Paul Ferguson) wrote: A new law that's apparently the first in the nation threatens to penalize Internet service providers that fail to warn users that some dial-up numbers can ring up enormous long-distance phone bills even though they appear local. aka, make ISPs liable for other people's fraud. What's the thinking here, anybody know? Erm... Requiring that ISPs notify customers that phone numbers in the same area code may not be local has WHAT exactly to do with making ISPs liable for other people's fraud? Sounds like a disclaimer requirement to me, nothing related to fraud just good business practice. You must be confusing this with exotic 900# and international locations which are used to scam people. You mean something like: N2Net is not responsible for tolls or long-distance charges incurred while dialing any of our access numbers. It is the customers responsibility to verify with their local telephone provider whether a particular number is a chargeable call. N2Net can not guarantee that a particular number is local to you. To determine whether or not one of our dialin numbers is local, dial '0' from the phone line you will use to call N2Net; give the operator your number, and give the operator the N2Net dialin number you want to use, and ask if it is a toll call. There may be times when a call is billed as a Local Plus call or as part of an extended calling area. In cases like this, while you don't get charged as much as a normal long-distance call, you still are charged PER MINUTE by the phone company. Please check with your phone company if you have questions about any of our numbers. PUCO (Public Utilities Commision of Ohio) Local Call Finder - Use this application to help you pick a dialup number, but still verify that the number is a local call by dialing your operator. -- Vice President of N2Net, a New Age Consulting Service, Inc. Company http://www.n2net.net Where everything clicks into place! KP-216-121-ST
Re: New N.Y. Law Targets Hidden Net LD Tolls
On Thu, 18 Aug 2005, Sean Donelan wrote: On Thu, 18 Aug 2005, Richard A Steenbergen wrote: Sounds like the standard notice that all reputable ISPs are probably already giving. Given the very real potential for grandma and grandpa to pick a number off a list which looks like it is in their area code and end up with a multi-thousand dollar phone bill the next month, I'm surprised consumer protection folks haven't asked for such a requirement sooner. I assume the NY AG will also be targeting enforcement of Domino's Pizza because they have lots of phone numbers and consumers may unknowingly dial a phone number to order a pizza which may be a toll call in their area. The difference between a call to Dominos pizza and browsing the Web is that you usually don't make 200+ calls / month averaging 20 minutes in length to order pizza. If you do, I think you have an eating disorder! ;) -- Vice President of N2Net, a New Age Consulting Service, Inc. Company http://www.n2net.net Where everything clicks into place! KP-216-121-ST
Re: New N.Y. Law Targets Hidden Net LD Tolls
Pardon my ignorance, but don't most phone companies require 10 digit dialing for long-distance. We have similar situations in the rural area I live in, but the customers know if they dial more than 7 digits, it WILL be long distance. No. If you are in an overlay area, such as MD, parts of NoVA and many other states; then 10D is required for ALL local calls MD does have 11D required for toll; but many states do not, inc. Virginia. (This topic is the vs vs emacs of the telco world, btw. I'm strongly in the 11D for toll camp, but others I respect [Hi Mr. Mayor] feel it's a PITA to dial 10D on every call..) This may have been inspired by ISP-set POP #'s. In a case I know of; a WebTV user did the setup via the 800#; and got told 867-5309 was local and it was automagically loaded into the WebTV box. 90 days later, the phone bill arrived... -- A host is a host from coast to [EMAIL PROTECTED] no one will talk to a host that's close[v].(301) 56-LINUX Unless the host (that isn't close).pob 1433 is busy, hung or dead20915-1433
RE: New N.Y. Law Targets Hidden Net LD Tolls
*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. Pardon my ignorance, but don't most phone companies require 10 digit dialing for long-distance. We have similar situations in the rural area I live in, but the customers know if they dial more than 7 digits, it WILL be long distance. Not in densely populated urban areas. In NYC there are at least 5 area codes (212, 516, 917, 646, 347) that are local calls. You can also get extended local calling that adds several more area codes (914, 518, and I think one more). In fact you have to do 10-digit dialing for any call in NYC now, even if you're just calling next door. Things are very different in rural areas where each town has a single exchange. In the 80s I was still dialing only 4 digits to call people in the same town. The next town over has a different exchange, but was part of the same local telco coop, so it was 7 digit dialing but still local. The entire state had one area code (still does), but I think you had to use 1+ to call any toll number. Of course, this is true for *every* call in such an area -- if the new law is actually singling out ISPs (and ISPs -only-), I expect it could be successfully challenged as 'discriminatory'. Agreed. It's silly to single out ISPs on this one. Any reasonable ISP is already warning customers that numbers that appear local may not be local. Way back in 95 I was working for a NY/NJ-based ISP that was trying to grow rapidly and we ran into this a lot, especially in NJ. After a handful of VERY irate customers called complaining about $500 phone bills, we got much better at knowing exactly where the toll lines were. We also worked with the Bell Atlantic to reduce the bills and started posting disclaimers. We would also do the work to ensure that a call was a local call if the customer asked, and explain to them how they could often get an expanded calling area for a small fee. The excessive 'local toll charge' situation is most visible on calls to ISPs, because those calls tend to be somewhat lengthy -- and frequent -- thus, the 'unexpected' charges can reach significant dollar value before the phone customer gets their first bill. Agreed, but is this really the ISPs fault, or is it the customer's fault. I think the fault lies with both. If an ISP is telling customers that they have local dialup numbers, the customer is likely going to believe the ISP. Sure mistakes happen, but if it keeps happening to a given ISP, maybe it is the ISP's fault. Life gets _really_ messy, when the ISP gets phone service from a CLEC, because there is no telling _where_ the ILEC uses as the 'rate point' for handing the calls off to that CLEC. And the CLEC bills their customers based on distance from the caller's location to that hand-off point. The ISP equipment may be across the street from the caller, but the ILEC-CLEC hand-off is on the far edge of the area-code. and the 'local toll charges' are applied. The CLEC can't tell you (and thus, neither can the ISP) which prefixes are a 'non-toll' call to their numbeers. And trying to get an authoritative answer from the ILEC about what charges are to the CLEC's prefix can be _very_ difficult. I have never come across this, but it may be more of a metro area thing. :-) I think in the end this is a typical government attempt to solve a non-problem. They can easily do public service announcements to inform their constituents, or ask the phone companies to deal with it as it really is a problem for them. It is a charge on the hone bill, right. :-) It's a very common problem in densely populated suburban areas. It's probably not much of a problem in North Dakota. I'm kind of perplexed why Mr. Spitzer is proposing this now though. It's not like dial-up is a growth market. I guess there are still people just getting their first internet connection and starting with dial-up. This might have had more traction 8-10 years ago, when people really were getting saddled with $500 phone bills. Jeremiah
Re: New N.Y. Law Targets Hidden Net LD Tolls
On Thu, Aug 18, 2005 at 07:42:53AM -0500, Robert Bonomi wrote: The CLEC can't tell you (and thus, neither can the ISP) which prefixes are a 'non-toll' call to their numbeers. And trying to get an authoritative answer from the ILEC about what charges are to the CLEC's prefix can be _very_ difficult. In some cases it can be easy, once you're online (paying high rates of course ;-) you can visit (in some cases) the telco websites: (eg: input 734-764, then 214-413) http://localcalling.sbc.com/LCA/lca_input.jsp The fun part is, it works for most of the states, except that most strange/obscure/messed up one, Texas. There's also: (734-429) http://www22.verizon.com/CallingAreas/LocalCallFinder/LocalCallFinderSAS.htm - Jared -- Jared Mauch | pgp key available via finger from [EMAIL PROTECTED] clue++; | http://puck.nether.net/~jared/ My statements are only mine.
Re: New N.Y. Law Targets Hidden Net LD Tolls
--- Sean Donelan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I assume the NY AG will also be targeting enforcement of Domino's Pizza because they have lots of phone numbers and consumers may unknowingly dial a phone number to order a pizza which may be a toll call in their area. A typical call to Domino's lasts 2 minutes, and if it's not actually a local call, you're almost certainly not in the delivery area (and would get redirected to the correct store). Accidentally dialing a nonlocal Domino's results in a $.10 bill (and no pizza). A typical call to a dial-up ISP is what, a few hours? Multiple times per month? Accidentally using a non-local ISP number can result in a bill in the hundreds of dollars pretty easily (also no pizza). -David David Barak Need Geek Rock? Try The Franchise: http://www.listentothefranchise.com Start your day with Yahoo! - make it your home page http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs
RE: New N.Y. Law Targets Hidden Net LD Tolls
On Thu, 18 Aug 2005, Brian Johnson wrote: Pardon my ignorance, but don't most phone companies require 10 digit dialing for long-distance. So I signed up for a trial of a spiffy service from RingCentral, who insist that they have numbers local to Victorville/Apple Valley, California, USA. They assigned me 760-301-mumble. 301 is Ridgecrest, an hour north of Victorville on US 395, and a toll call. But Verizon still allows 7D dialing for toll calls in this part of the country. (RingCentral later told me we just allow you to pick a city to determine which area code your number will be in - no, morons, you advertise local numbers in Victorville, and you should just allow people to pick an area code without listing cities in that area code.) And there are plenty of spots around the US where 10D dialing is required even for local, non-toll calls. -- Steve Sobol, Professional Geek 888-480-4638 PGP: 0xE3AE35ED Company website: http://JustThe.net/ Personal blog, resume, portfolio: http://SteveSobol.com/ E: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Snail: 22674 Motnocab Road, Apple Valley, CA 92307
RE: New N.Y. Law Targets Hidden Net LD Tolls
-Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of David Lesher Sent: Thursday, August 18, 2005 8:31 AM To: nanog list Subject: Re: New N.Y. Law Targets Hidden Net LD Tolls Pardon my ignorance, but don't most phone companies require 10 digit dialing for long-distance. We have similar situations in the rural area I live in, but the customers know if they dial more than 7 digits, it WILL be long distance. No. If you are in an overlay area, such as MD, parts of NoVA and many other states; then 10D is required for ALL local calls MD does have 11D required for toll; but many states do not, inc. Virginia. (This topic is the vs vs emacs of the telco world, btw. I'm strongly in the 11D for toll camp, but others I respect [Hi Mr. Mayor] feel it's a PITA to dial 10D on every call..) This may have been inspired by ISP-set POP #'s. In a case I know of; a WebTV user did the setup via the 800#; and got told 867-5309 was local and it was automagically loaded into the WebTV box. 90 days later, the phone bill arrived... Now on this one, throw the book at WebTV. If you are gonna make the settings for the customer, you are responsibe for the results of your actions. But, of course, I'm sure they have a disclaimer saying that it is your responsibility to insure the number selected is a local call. - Brian J
Re: New N.Y. Law Targets Hidden Net LD Tolls
Thus spake Robert Bonomi [EMAIL PROTECTED] *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). Sure, this is a little confusing for out-of-towners, but it makes it impossible to accidentally dial a toll call when you think you're dialing a local one, which is the reason the PUC decreed it several decades ago. Apparently NY is just now catching up with rednecks from the 70s. 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
Re: New N.Y. Law Targets Hidden Net LD Tolls
From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Thu Aug 18 11:04:41 2005 Date: Thu, 18 Aug 2005 07:56:10 -0700 (PDT) From: David Barak [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: New N.Y. Law Targets Hidden Net LD Tolls To: Sean Donelan [EMAIL PROTECTED], nanog@merit.edu --- Sean Donelan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I assume the NY AG will also be targeting enforcement of Domino's Pizza because they have lots of phone numbers and consumers may unknowingly dial a phone number to order a pizza which may be a toll call in their area. A typical call to Domino's lasts 2 minutes, and if it's not actually a local call, you're almost certainly not in the delivery area (and would get redirected to the correct store). Accidentally dialing a nonlocal Domino's results in a $.10 bill (and no pizza). A typical call to a dial-up ISP is what, a few hours? Multiple times per month? Accidentally using a non-local ISP number can result in a bill in the hundreds of dollars pretty easily (also no pizza). All true, but *WHY* is that 'accidentally dialing a non-local ISP number' the *ISP's* fault??
Re: New N.Y. Law Targets Hidden Net LD Tolls
--- Robert Bonomi [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: A typical call to a dial-up ISP is what, a few hours? Multiple times per month? Accidentally using a non-local ISP number can result in a bill in the hundreds of dollars pretty easily (also no pizza). All true, but *WHY* is that 'accidentally dialing a non-local ISP number' the *ISP's* fault?? Who said anything about fault? This is merely a recognition on the part of Government that consumers might make a costly mistake. The Government decided to tell ISPs to give the consumers an extra notice to try to prevent that. Not unreasonable at all (although personally, I like the TX-style all your long distance are 11D, else 10D approach). Simple consumer protection, similar to the offtopic warning! requirement to publish both per item and per measured unit pricing on foodstuffs... /offtopic -David David Barak Need Geek Rock? Try The Franchise: http://www.listentothefranchise.com __ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com
Re: New N.Y. Law Targets Hidden Net LD Tolls
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: New N.Y. Law Targets Hidden Net LD Tolls Date: Thu, 18 Aug 2005 12:53:43 -0500 Thus spake Robert Bonomi [EMAIL PROTECTED] *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.
Re: New N.Y. Law Targets Hidden Net LD Tolls
Hi, On Thu, Aug 18, 2005 at 03:54:38AM -0400, Richard A Steenbergen wrote: To quote the original pasted article: Consumers, however, must act on the warning that Internet providers must soon post by contacting their phone companies to find out whether a number is truly local. It used to be standard practice until last year that SBC (dial-up and DSL provider here in this area, as well as the 'Bell' phone company) let you look up dial-in numbers for 'your' local area code and exchange. However, the results only came back without any numbers in your own area code, just the ones from other area codes where they had dial-in numbers. If you did not know how to work the system, you would be using one of the numbers that are truly a toll call for you. And you'd pay to SBC-the_phone_company to get to SBC-the_ISP because the ISP withheld the local numbers from you. The way how to work the system was to enter another valid area code and exchange, then look for dial-in numbers in your area code and finally determine (e.g. by checking in the listing in the local phone book front pages or by inquiring from the 'dial zero' operator) which of the numbers are inside your toll free calling area. Since then (I can't tell exactly when, because I only used this lookup feature when I was about to travel out of town) SBC has changed this practice and you can get all numbers listed from their search page at http://sbcyahoo.prodigy.net/openPhone/ . Note the disclaimer explanations right on that page Long Distance Charges and Finding the Best Exchange for You. -andreas -- Andreas Ott[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: New N.Y. Law Targets Hidden Net LD Tolls
On Thu, 18 Aug 2005 13:47:11 CDT, Robert Bonomi said: All true, but *WHY* is that 'accidentally dialing a non-local ISP number' the *ISP's* fault?? Because the ISP gave the number to the user, often accompanied by text that implied that the number provided was an economical way to get connected. Here's a list of our local numbers: Here's a list of our numbers in your area code. Some numbers may be toll calls from some locations in the area code, please double-check. As far as I can tell, they're requiring the second rather than the first. Move along, nothing to see... ;) pgpJ5gkgpQKbN.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: New N.Y. Law Targets Hidden Net LD Tolls
Speaking on Deep Background, the Press Secretary whispered: Not unreasonable at all (although personally, I like the TX-style all your long distance are 11D, else 10D approach). Simple consumer protection, similar to the offtopic warning! Ahem; MD has to me the most viable approach: type: local toll 7D NFG NFG 10D OK NFG 11D OK OK where the defn of toll is by the minute. Face it, 7D is dead; and even if overlays had not arrived, cell phones would have killed it. Once you learn to think 10D, it's trivial. But there are some people who are too stubborn and pigheaded^Y^Y^Y feel differently about this issue... That said; this is getting OT for NANOG.. -- A host is a host from coast to [EMAIL PROTECTED] no one will talk to a host that's close[v].(301) 56-LINUX Unless the host (that isn't close).pob 1433 is busy, hung or dead20915-1433
