Date: 25 Oct 2000 06:15:11 -0400 Message-ID: <20001025101511.5940.qmail@xuxa.iecc.com> From: owner-telecom-digest@telecom-digest.org (Telecom Digest) To: telecom-digest@telecom-digest.org Subject: Telecom Digest V2000 #100 Reply-To: editor@telecom-digest.org Sender: owner-telecom-digest@telecom-digest.org Errors-To: owner-telecom-digest@telecom-digest.org Precedence: bulk X-UIDL: d97c0fddba3af14e5953db7bf38b158e Status: RO X-Status: Telecom Digest Wednesday, October 25 2000 Volume 2000 : Number 100 In this issue: cmsg cancel no reply ignore Re: Database of Toll Call/Local Calling by Area Code + Exchange? Re: Database of Toll Call/Local Calling by Area Code + Exchange? ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 25 Oct 2000 06:01:48 GMT From: spambot@stopspam.org Subject: cmsg cancel no reply ignore Ignore Excessive Cross Posted/Excessive Multi-Posted article canceled by Ken Lucke X-Cancel-ID: -[LXU1 Subject: Re: Database of Toll Call/Local Calling by Area Code + Exchange? In article <20001024234018.B5952@openswitch.org>, Brian F. G. Bidulock wrote: > Don, > > On Tue, 24 Oct 2000, Don Wallace wrote: > > > > Is there a company that compiles data like this or a web site that > > provides a lookup of this sort? > > As far as I know, the North American Numbering Plan adminstration > is responsible for maintaining all records. No, NANPA maintains no records at all of what prefixes are local to which other prefixes. NANPA just assigns the area codes, and in some states the prefixes; what constitutes a local calling area is purely a state regulatory issue. There are companies that maintain such databases, but they charge quite a lot of money for access, since the database is enormous and requires considerable work to keep current and accurate. - -- The Telecom Digest is currently mostly robomoderated. Please mail messages to editor@telecom-digest.org. ------------------------------ Date: 25 Oct 2000 05:17:19 -0400 From: Linc Madison Subject: Re: Database of Toll Call/Local Calling by Area Code + Exchange? In article <20001024234532.C5952@openswitch.org>, Brian F. G. Bidulock wrote: > Linc, > > It's not like that at all. Before LAMA and SS7 we used to have to send > calls dialed with a 1 to the CAMA (Toll) switch and this switch was not > supposed to use End-Office toll trunks to hairpin calls back to the > local network. Also, mechanical switches did not have good databases > so you had to dial them correctly. Fine. But none of those issues has any relevance today, at least in any cities of noticeable size. > In areas where CAMA billing is still being performed, allow these calls > back the the local network provides all kinds of potential for fraud. Okay, so you allow an exception for tiny telcos with antique equipment. Fine. If the switch is genuinely incapable of shortcutting a call to a local trunk and zero-billing it if it's dialed with an unnecessary leading 1+, then you can route 1+ local calls to intercept. But how many switches meet that condition? A couple dozen in the whole country, I'd guess. The fact remains, there is NO REASON to disallow 1+10d on local calls in 99+% of the switches in the United States. As for 0+10d, yes, it should just go through. I had an occasion just a few months ago in Dallas where I needed to dial a local number with operator assistance. The ONLY way to do that was by dialing "zero-minus"; that's absurd. If someone is silly enough to dial 0+10d on a local call and then just enter a calling card number, or make the call collect, then that's just too bad. - -- The Telecom Digest is currently mostly robomoderated. Please mail messages to editor@telecom-digest.org. ------------------------------ End of Telecom Digest V2000 #100 ********************************