1+ dialing, toll calls

[gold...@alpha.dec]

Wouldn't it be nice if the phone company made you dial a prefix before
making any toll calls? Maybe it would, but that's NOT what 1+ is
supposed to do. It routes calls to a toll office, for further handling,
in areas that don't use the newer "blue book" rules. In the latter
case, though, 1+ means "the next three digits are the area code".
This will come in VERY handy when they assign area code 260 (the
first one on the blue book list). Until then, the 1+ won't be quite
as necessary in areas that don't have "interchangeable" prefices,
like 212-206-xxxx.

New Jersey never had 1+ at all until recently; now it's used on
area code calls. You can dial from Piscataway to Park Ridge without
dialing 1+, though it's clear across the LATA. This is exactly as
it should be. The fact that some cheapo toll restriction hardware
and some PBXs make the invalid assumption that 1+ means "toll" is
no reason to expect the network to do the same.

And if you dial 1603893 from Lawrence, MA, you DON'T get Salem NH;
you get a recording. Salem is "893", and the area code just confuses
matters. New England Tel obviously doesn't go by the book here!
There are a few other places where NET's routing is confusing; for
example, there are several suburban (South) prefices near Boston that
are toll points from Lexington, but don't require 1+. They are actually
routed via the local tandem the same as local calls, but the tariff
sez NET can charge a toll, and by golly, they will!
Fred

[pa...@dual.uucp]

>
> Wouldn't it be nice if the phone company made you dial a prefix before
> making any toll calls?

No it wouldn't. It would lead to the idiotic situation where you dial a
number a get a message telling you to redial it with a one in front. Most
calls to numbers in one's own area code are not terribly expensive. I can't
believe many people even care if a call is a toll call or local. Perhaps
it could be an option on a per line basis along with a no 976 calls option.

Paul Wilcox-Baker.