Documentation of NXX Codes (Local v. Toll ; 1+ v. lack of 1+)
Mark J. Cuccia
documentation in the front of the annual white-pages as to which
(NPA)-NXX codes are local. Of course, this is only an annually avail.
list for the basic flat-rate Local Calling Area, but if one calls the
Business Office from time-to-time, they do send out any revisions.
If one goes to "LOS" (Local Optional Service) or even the (at least
in Louisiana part of BellSouth) recently-upgraded-to-LATA-wide
"Area Plus" calling plans, BellSouth will send such lists of what
(NPA)-NXX codes are local to _your_ originating ratecenter/wirecenter/
(NPA)-NXX c.o. code(s).
I have had "Area Plus" for over two years now. This past July,
Louisiana Area Plus customers were enhanced to _LATA-WIDE_ Area Plus.
However, for those NPA-NXX codes which were added (i.e. they fall
outside of even the UN-capped (inTRA-LATA) "LOS" region), I _MUST_
dial 1+NPA+seven-digits. Everything else in Area Plus which _ALSO_
falls within "LOS" can _ONLY_ be dialed as 'straight' seven-digits
(or in a few NPA-border cases, 'stright' NPA+seven-digits). And
BellSouth sent out GOOD documentation of ratecenter/wirecenter names,
(NPA)-NXX codes, and info on whether or not 1+ must be dialed or
is prohibited (i.e. straight 7d vs. (1)+NPA+seven-digits), even tho'
_ALL_ calls for such "Area Plus" customers are "free" and unlimited/
untimed/unmeasured.
For the most part, _ALL_ '0+' calls, whether local or toll, inTRA-
or inTER-LATA, home-NPA or differing-NPA, are dialed as 0+ten-digits.
Cellular dialing procedures are far more flexible, but the 'SEND'
key at the end of the (pre) entered string is what permits such
flexibility.
CAC-code dialing (101-XXXX+) 'usually' works okay for the above
'sent-paid' dialing rules (7d vs. 10d vs. 1+10d), but some of the
few inconsistancies has to do with crazy translation errors in the
WECO #1A's, WECO/"Loose-end" #5E's, NECO (Nortel) DMS-100's,
Stromberg/Siemanns DCO's, etc.
There _NEEDS_ to be a uniform NANP-wide dialing procedure to take
care of eliminating numbering/code/dialing ambiguities, _AND_ to
protect the consumer from reaching locations which are toll to them
when they intended to only place a 'local' (or free) call... AS WELL
AS a way for _other_ customers to choose to uniformly dial a call and
_NOT_ get 'blocked' in translations - whether or not a toll charge is
going to apply.
Linc Madison, Bob Goudrou, others and myself all seem to agree on this!
MARK_J._CUCCIA__PHONE/WRITE/WIRE/CABLE:__HOME:__(USA)__Tel:_CHestnut-1-2497
WORK:__mc...@mailhost.tcs.tulane.edu|4710-Wright-Road|__(+1-504-241-2497)
Tel:UNiversity-5-5954(+1-504-865-5954)|New-Orleans-28__|fwds-on-no-answr-to
Fax:UNiversity-5-5917(+1-504-865-5917)|Louisiana(70128)|cellular/voicemail-
Adam H. Kerman
Mark J. Cuccia <mcu...@mailhost.tcs.tulane.edu> wrote:
>There _NEEDS_ to be a uniform NANP-wide dialing procedure to take
>care of eliminating numbering/code/dialing ambiguities, _AND_ to
>protect the consumer from reaching locations which are toll to them
>when they intended to only place a 'local' (or free) call... AS WELL
>AS a way for _other_ customers to choose to uniformly dial a call and
>_NOT_ get 'blocked' in translations - whether or not a toll charge is
>going to apply.
>Linc Madison, Bob Goudrou, others and myself all seem to agree on this!
I object to toll alerting since we never had it in Chicago. Would the alert be
for an interLATA call? But we have intraLATA toll calls. Would the alert be for
the toll-non toll boundary? But we have three different calling zones in non
toll territory. The zone >15 miles has flat per-minute rates, the 8-15 mile
zone has initial-minute and additional minute rates that vary by time of day.
The <8 mile zone has untimed calls (residential only; business pays initial
minute plus additional minute) that vary by time of day. Volume discounts
apply to the two inner zones but not the outer zone. Some residential
customers who expect to make a lot of calls to the two outer zones may choose
among three pre-paid calling plans that include a certain number of untimed
calls within all three zones, and untimed calls at fixed prices should the
pre-paid calls be exceeded.
Then, you may designate a PIC other than the LEC for the outer zone and
INTRASTATE intraLATA toll calls, but you may not designate a PIC for
INTERSTATE intraLATA toll calls.
How would you handle the toll alert? Any call over 8 miles? Residential only?
Toll boundary only if you've pre-subscribed to a Call-Pak? No toll alert if
you've PICed?
0+ dialling is even more complicated. We use the same dialling pattern to reach
the LEC operator or the interLATA operator: 0+NPA+nxx-xxxx. But other parts of
the country don't. The LATA splits three area codes that include some intraLATA
calling. I would find it useful to have an NPA-wide dialing pattern that
alerted me that I'm not making an intraLATA call and will not reach the
LEC operator. (And I'd sure as hell like COCOT's to let me use the LEC
operator!)
But I wouldn't want to dial 0+1+NPA+nxx-xxxx to make an interLATA call in
case a LATA splits an area code. And I assume that this dialling pattern would
be specifically disallowed under any NANP dialling plan.
At the very least, I'd like a universal rule that forces LEC operators to be
reachable via any Fg.D method! None of the CICs assigned to Ameritech can be
used to reach the LEC operator in Chicago!
John Levine
>care of eliminating numbering/code/dialing ambiguities,
Yes.
> _AND_ to protect the consumer from reaching locations which are toll
> to them when they intended to only place a 'local' (or free) call...
No.
As others have noted many times, large urban states including New
York, California, Illinois, and New Jersey have never had toll
alerting, and I haven't noticed a rash of telephone-related
bankruptcies there. What's more, with the various message unit, local
toll, extended area, and who knows what else billing plans, the
distinction between local calls and toll calls is quite arbitrary, and
I've lived in places where there are "local" calls dialed with 7
digits that cost far more than "toll" calls dialed with 11 digits.
Back when a 3 minute toll call could cost three bucks (and three bucks
would buy a decent dinner), toll alerting made some sense. Now that
you can call Honolulu for 9 cents (which will buy a stick of gum,
maybe), toll alerting is an anachronism.
--
John R. Levine, IECC, POB 727, Trumansburg NY 14886 +1 607 387 6869
jo...@iecc.com, Village Trustee and Sewer Commissioner, http://iecc.com/johnl,
Member, Provisional board, Coalition Against Unsolicited Commercial E-mail
Lisa or Jeff
size from place to place.
For example, in Trenton NJ (area code 609), a 7 digit call to another
609 number could be a purely local call, short-distance toll call, or
long-haul toll call. Conversely, in nearby Bucks County PA, one could
dial a 10 digit cross-area code call for message units or even free.
The toll area boundaries don't necessarily correspond to area code
boundaries, especially in recent years with all the splits. Also, as
Mark describes, local calling areas are being redefined.
And you have different local calling plans.
In the Philadelphia area (and possibly others), suburban calls are
charged by "message units" (measured service), which varies by cost
depending on a subscriber's particular calling plan. Such calls aren't
itemized, but lumped together as an aggregate charge.
But I think the biggest change in all of this is the lessened important
of toll calling to people. When I started working, making a telephone
call was serious business. Most office telephones were restricted to
intercom use only, only some phones had dial 9 capability---AND those
were restricted to local calls only. For any long distance calls, you
had to go through the company PBX operator who'd make up a company toll
ticket.
But over time calling charges dropped, especially relative to inflation.
50c is a lot less significant in 1998 than in 1968, especially when
coupled with paying a telephone operator to track all these charges, as
well as in productivity of individuals. Plus our country is more spread
out now, in 1968 outside calls were to local parties, now long distance
is routine.
So, if someone inadvertently makes a toll call and wastes 25c (if that
much), I don't think they're gonna waste time worrying about it.
Ken Eikert
>
> As others have noted many times, large urban states including New
> York, California, Illinois, and New Jersey have never had toll
> alerting, and I haven't noticed a rash of telephone-related
> bankruptcies there. What's more, with the various message unit, local
> toll, extended area, and who knows what else billing plans, the
> distinction between local calls and toll calls is quite arbitrary, and
> I've lived in places where there are "local" calls dialed with 7
> digits that cost far more than "toll" calls dialed with 11 digits.
>
> Back when a 3 minute toll call could cost three bucks (and three bucks
> would buy a decent dinner), toll alerting made some sense. Now that
> you can call Honolulu for 9 cents (which will buy a stick of gum,
> maybe), toll alerting is an anachronism.
There are many areas of the U.S. where local calls are unabiguously
"free," and the distinction between local and toll is not an
anachronism. Hawaii may be a cheap 9-cent call, but an intraLATA
toll call to a nearby town may cost substantially more.
J. Benz
Ken Eikert wrote:
> There are many areas of the U.S. where local calls are unabiguously
> "free," and the distinction between local and toll is not an
> anachronism. Hawaii may be a cheap 9-cent call, but an intraLATA
> toll call to a nearby town may cost substantially more.
Where I live, I can call my office as a free local call. It's 40 miles
away. But if I call my neighbor, whose house is near enough that I can yell
off the front porch and get an answer, it's a toll call to phone, and costs
about 80 cents. (the LATA boundary runs down the middle of the road between
us).
Michael G. Koerner
----------
In article <361D0676...@mailhost.tcs.tulane.edu>, "Mark J. Cuccia"
<mcu...@mailhost.tcs.tulane.edu> wrote:
>BellSouth (and independents) here in Louisiana have reasonably good
>documentation in the front of the annual white-pages as to which
>(NPA)-NXX codes are local. Of course, this is only an annually avail.
>list for the basic flat-rate Local Calling Area, but if one calls the
>Business Office from time-to-time, they do send out any revisions.
About two years ago, Ameritech *dropped* their lists of local and 'extended
area' NXXs from their books here in Wisconsin. (AAAARRRGGGGGHHHHH!!!!!!!)
They replaced them with a notice that says (under a heading of 'Local Area
Calling'): "The number of telephone prefixes (the first three digits of a
telephone number) in use continues to grow as the result of increasing
demands for telecommunications services and an expanding number of
telecommunications competitors. Your local service provider can furnish you
with current and accurate information on which telephone prefixes are
considered local calls when dialed from your telephone. To request local
calling area information, including extended community calling, contact your
service provider at the telephone number for either Order Placement or Sales
and Services on the Telephone & Directory Services page."
Typical Ameritech...
____________________________________________________________________________
Regards,
Michael G. Koerner
Appleton, WI
***NOTICE*** SPAMfilter in use, please remove ALL 'i's from the return
address to reply. ***NOTICE***
____________________________________________________________________________
danny burstein
>So what you are saying is "toll alerting" exists already;
>it's just the alert is the dial tone. Correct?
>But given that not everywhere is so disadvantaged, do you object
>to toll alerting in those areas too?
Ah, but with $50/month giving you a(n) (a)dsl full time connection, (or a
cable modem) watch what happens... I betcha that within a year that
$50/month will give you, in effect, unlimited and unmetered _decent_ voice
connections to anyone similarly "on net". oh, and easy to use...
As to "off net", we'll either see some of the rbocs/ixcs/others offering
a flat rate of $25/month, or a $0.05/minute charge.
danny 'you give us $75/month, we'll give you the US, Canada, and lots of
the rest of the world' burstein
--
_____________________________________________________
Knowledge may be power, but communications is the key
dan...@panix.com
[to foil spammers, my address has been double rot-13 encoded]
Fred Heald
check the number dialed, look up the cost to call that number based on
your 'picked' LD carrier, and speak that onto the line before sending out
the call. "Trenton, New Jersey. Four Cents per minute." The same device
could be set up to handle whatever 1+ or intra-area-code dialing setups
without the user having to interact with it. This could be integrated
into a 'pop-up', SMDR, or caller ID system.
The costing database would have to be localized, and updated regularly -
maybe it could log onto the web once a week or something.
On second thought, never mind, forget I mentioned it...
Lisa or Jeff (hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com) wrote:
: The problem is that area-codes and "local calling areas" vary so much in
--
Fred Heald just...@netcom.com
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"I am Barney of Borg. I love you, you love me. Resistance is futile."
-Talking Mouse
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mark J Cuccia
> >>There is simply no rational method of establishing toll alerting in the
> >>Chicago area. We have measured service; all calls cost extra.
>
> >So what you are saying is "toll alerting" exists already;
> >it's just the alert is the dial tone. Correct?
>
> Exactly!
>
> >But given that not everywhere is so disadvantaged, do you object
> >to toll alerting in those areas too?
>
> Perhaps there should be toll alerting only if a single pre-paid calling
> area exists. If customers have a choice of pre-paid calling areas, and
> toll alerting reflected one's prepaid calling area, it would be confusing
> to visitors using your phone. I wouldn't have toll alerting in these
> situations.
>
> I'd especially object if toll alterting was used as an excuse not to offer
> choices to customers, as if monopolies needed additional excuses.
>
> Although others have pointed out that a few places have toll alerting
> based on calling plans. How much of a problem is this?
>
> Personally, I see a significant disadvantage in being forced to use the "1"
> dialing prefix. I find that it outweighs any advantage of toll alerting.
> Adults are capable of estimating distances between local points.
Well, with local competition now in the Chicago metro area (i.e. FOCAL),
why don't some competitors offer various "flat-rate" or at least
"discounted" per-minute local/EAS/whatever plans? Isn't that supposed to be
one of the many reasons the feds have been mandating the incumbent LECs and
state reg's to open up the local network to competitive connecting telcos?
I'm not proposing any "hard and fast" inflexible NANP-wide rules as to
where one _MUST_ dial a 1+ vs. where a 1+ is permitted but not required to
be dialed. That should be a local decision or at least a decision between
the customer and their service provider. Even though "all" calls in
Chicago metro (on Ameritech's dialtone; except for calls to Business Office
and Repair, Operator herself, 800/888/877/950/etc.), the calls in nearby
zones could be allowed without a 1+ (but permitted), while calls in the
outer zones and other extra-charge calls would _require_ a 1+ be dialed
first.
You also mention that "Adults are capable of estimating distances between
local points", but what about the household with a lot of kids making
calls. True, the kids could start dialing the calls 1+, but for parents
who take the proper extra responsibility, those kids who do so and run up
their parents' bills should get backsides tanned! :)
For businesses with PBX's... that want to restrict "any" employee or
customer from dialing more "expensive" regional calls, they could have the
1+ "POTS/chargeable" numbers BLOCKED rather easily.
Payphones (at least the privately owned ones or those with internal chips)
could easily determine things on whether a 1+ is dialed or not!
Elderly people and those who don't really speak English in urban areas
would be able to 'know' that if a 1+ is required that the call is going to
cost something "more" than calls that don't require the 1+, even though
such "local straight-ten-digit" calls would cost "something"...
Visitors/houseguests unfamiliar with the area as well as unfamiliar with
the price ranges based JUST on the originating NPA-NXX and terminating
NPA-NXX would be able to determine the local/small charge vs.toll/high charge
calls and regions.
_AND_, as I've mentioned several times before, if ever full 10-digit
portability is extended NANP-wide (or at least (continental)US/Canada wide)
at some point down the road into the future... if at that time, "toll",
and Chicago-type "measured rate" / "unit" calling still exists, a database
dip could also be used to give an alerting recording to "hang up and
redial with a leading 1+ before the 10-digits" if the customer dialed just
straight 10-digits and that partiuclar destination number carries a charge
above a pre-determined price-threshold. Such things as pricing/rating
could just as easily be loaded into the databases to determine treatments
based on the dialed-string, just as the routing of the call is determined
in the database-dip based on the dialed-digits!
> >And do you see any reason to ban 11D calls?
>
> No, of course not. Prior to 1985, Chicago had 10-digit dialing for
> inter-NPA calls. Originally, the "1" dialing prefix was banned.
> After 1975 or so, it was optional. After 1985, it was mandatory.
> Since 1994 or so, 11 digit dialing became optional for intra-NPA calls.
> Some time next year when the 224 overlay becomes effective,
> 11-digit dialing will be mandatory for all calls.
>
> I object to this. If the area code must be dialed for all calls, then the "1"
> dialing prefix should be optional.
But many of us (INCLUDING OTHER PEOPLE I know in the Chicago metro area)
would disagree, and like to see 1+ required for 10-digit dialed calls
which would cost more than a certain threshold.
> I especially object to parts of the country that still require 1+7d for
> toll alerting. If we must have it, use the NPA! And I object to parts of the
> country that prevent 11-digit dialing.
Except for some "flukes" in rural independent territory, I don't know of
_ANY_ part of the NANP that still allows 1+seven-digits home-NPA toll on
landline switches.
[Cellular is a different situation, since the "SEND" key is entered at the
end, and since AIRTIME charges _usually_ apply on cellular calls (some of
us are grandfathered on the not-anymore-offered-to-new-customers
BellSouth Mobility unlimited non-roaming airtime on weekends/overnites),
cellular dialing patterns are some of the most flexible regardless of
whether the call is "toll" or "local". For the most part, all calls from a
cellular cost money to the end-user.
Yes, Chicago, and the urban areas in central/northern CA (San Francisco /
Oakland; although southern CA developed with SxS but has had zoned-priced
regional dialing going back a long time), and other urban areas in the
midwest and northeast have had "units" and "measured rate" for decades,
and there wasn't such a thing as a mandatory 1+ for "toll" - and (except
for southern CA), the other areas were Panel/#1XB dialing in the earliest
days of dial telephony).
But I _do_ know of people in all of these areas that hate the fact that
they don't have some form of required 1+ before toll or extra-charge
calls. They _do_ want 1+ required before such calls, to be implemented in
their areas, rather than trying to have the 1+ removed from other areas of
the country!
Actually the LECs (whether independent or Bell, incumbent or new-entrant,
landline or wireless, even the IXCs themselves) should be LOWERING the
overall per-minue per-mile per-call (etc) rates, as well as ENHANCING
various FLAT-RATE programs. THAT's what those who don't like what their
LEC or IXC has done to them OUGHT to be complaining about! and lobbying/
petitioning regulatory and the carriers (i.e. shopping around and telling
your carrier WHY you are changing away from them) FOR such expanded
unlimited or discount rate-plans! :)
_NOT_ the thing that "1+ required for toll isn't necessary because we
never had it, and it ought to go away everywhere else in time".
If we EVER have unlimited untimed unmeasured calling throughout the NANP
(or even the world) at some date well into the future, then we COULD
eliminate "toll alerting" in the dialing pattern. But as long as there is
toll or "higher local charge" calling, (even though _MOST_ of my calling
pattern _IS_ toll), some form of toll-alert indication code _should_ be
required and eventually standardized in the dialing string.
mjc
Linc Madison
Kerman) wrote:
> David Lesher <wb8...@netcom.com> wrote:
> >a...@chinet.chinet.com (Adam H. Kerman) writes:
>
> >>There is simply no rational method of establishing toll alerting in the
> >>Chicago area. We have measured service; all calls cost extra.
There is a very simple, rational method that *could* be used to establish
toll alerting in the Chicago area. (Note that I'm not trying to force
toll alerting on you, only to point out that your statement that there is
"no rational method" is incorrect.) All calls within the same rate center,
or to any other rate center that is billed identically to calls within the
same rate center, would be "local" and would not require 1+. All calls to
rate centers that are billed differently from calls within the same rate
center, would require the 1+.
This same method could even work for cellular, although I think that toll
alerting for cellular is unnecessary.
> Perhaps there should be toll alerting only if a single pre-paid calling
> area exists. If customers have a choice of pre-paid calling areas, and
> toll alerting reflected one's prepaid calling area, it would be confusing
> to visitors using your phone. I wouldn't have toll alerting in these
> situations.
Exactly the reverse is true! It would be a MAJOR BENEFIT to have toll
alerting that reflects your choice of pre-paid calling areas, and would
REDUCE the confusion to visitors. For instance, suppose I subscribe to
a rate plan from my LEC that gives me untimed calls within the entire
LATA. I'm visiting a friend. I pick up his phone and dial without 1+.
I get a message telling me that it's a non-local call. I thus know,
at the least, not to chat idly assuming that the call is free (as it
would be from my home). I can either talk very briefly, use a calling
card, or wait until I get home.
This is exactly how it works in Texas, although they make the unfortunate
mistake of adding in "local alerting" (1+10D prohibited on local calls).
If you have Metro service on the Dallas side, you can call the Fort Worth
side without the 1+, because it's a local call. If you have regular
service on the Dallas side, you must dial 1+ for Fort Worth, because it's
a toll call. Southwestern Bell also offers an expanded local calling
area option, even for non-Metro subscribers, and your 1+ requirement
reflects that calling plan.
> Personally, I see a significant disadvantage in being forced to use the "1"
> dialing prefix. I find that it outweighs any advantage of toll alerting.
> Adults are capable of estimating distances between local points.
Utter nonsense. You are making the entirely invalid assumption that the
caller knows where the dialed number is located. If I dial 882-xxxx,
that call is within my rate center. If I dial 883-xxxx, that's a toll
call about 40 miles away. I'm far more savvy than most teleconsumers,
but I don't pretend to know all the prefixes that are local to me, much
less where all the prefixes in all the area codes in my metropolitan
area are located.
Further, your statement that being forced to dial 1+ is such a great
burden that it outweighs any advantage of toll alerting, is ludicrous
and absurd. Dialing 1+ is not a major burden. What you are really
saying is that you see no benefit to toll alerting; your statement that
there is a "significant disadvantage" in 1+ is silly. In particular,
your statement that 1+10D is significantly more burdensome than straight
10D is laughable.
> I especially object to parts of the country that still require 1+7d for
> toll alerting. If we must have it, use the NPA!
There are no such parts of the country. 1 + NXX-XXXX is prohibited
everywhere in the U.S. Has been since 1995. The few laggards have
long since shaped up on this point.
> And I object to parts of the country that prevent 11-digit dialing.
I entirely agree on this point, as everyone knows by now.
--
** Do not send me unsolicited commercial e-mail spam of any kind **
Linc Madison * San Francisco, California * Telecom@LincMad-com
URL:< http://www.lincmad.com > * North American Area Codes & Splits
>> NOTE: if you autoreply, you must delete the "NOSPAM" <<