I would imagine for VOIP that's because all three are country code 1 :) On Tue, Apr 26, 2016 at 7:50 PM, Ray Orsini <r...@orsiniit.com> wrote:
> On our VOIP service we include US, Canada and Puerto Rico as "local" > calling. > > Regards, > > Ray Orsini – CEO > Orsini IT, LLC – Technology Consultants > VOICE DATA BANDWIDTH SECURITY SUPPORT > P: 305.967.6756 x1009 E: r...@orsiniit.com TF: 844.OIT.VOIP > 7900 NW 155th Street, Suite 103, Miami Lakes, FL 33016 > http://www.orsiniit.com | View My Calendar | View/Pay Your Invoices | View > Your Tickets > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: NANOG [mailto:nanog-bounces+ray=orsiniit....@nanog.org] On Behalf Of > Larry Sheldon > Sent: Tuesday, April 26, 2016 3:11 PM > To: nanog@nanog.org > Subject: Re: phone fun, was GeoIP database issues and the real world > consequences > > > > On 4/20/2016 10:15, Owen DeLong wrote: > > > >> On Apr 20, 2016, at 7:59 AM, Jean-Francois Mezei > >> <jfmezei_na...@vaxination.ca> wrote: > >> > >> On 2016-04-20 10:52, Owen DeLong wrote: > >> > >>> For the most part, “long distance” calls within the US are a thing > >>> of the past and at least one mobile carrier now treats US/CA/MX as a > >>> single local calling area > >> > >> > >> Is this a case of telcos having switched to IP trunks and can reach > >> other carriers for "free" > >> > >> Or are wholesale long distance still billed between carriers but at > >> prices so low that they can afford to offer "free" long distance at > >> retail level ? > > > > I think it boiled down to a recognition that the costs of billing were > > beginning to account for something like $0.99 of every $1 billed. > > I wonder if the costs of avoiding-preventing-investigating toll fraud final > grow to consume the profit in the product. > > I know that long ago there were things that I thought were insanely silly. > A few examples: > > As an ordinary citizen I was amused and annoyed, in the case where a toll > charge had been contested (and perforce refunded) there would often be > several non-revenue calls to the protesting number asking whoever answered > if they knew anybody in the called city, or if they knew who > the called number belonged to. (Proper answer in any case: Who or > what I know is none of your business.) Often there would calls to the > called number (super irritating because the error was in the > recording--later learned to be poor handwriting) asking the reciprocal > questions except that often they had no idea that a call had been made. > > I was a Toll Transmissionman for a number or years back in the last iceage > and one of the onerous tasks the supervisor had was "verifying the phone > bill" which might be a stack as much as six inches tall. The evening shift > supervisor (or one of them in a large office, like Los Angeles 1 Telegraph, > where I worked for a while) would go through the bill, line by line, page > by > page, looking at the called number an d if he recognized it and placing a > check mark next to it, If he did not recognize it, he would search the > many > lists in the office to see it was shown, and adding a check mark if a list > showed it for a likely sounding legal call. If that didn't work he would > probably have to call the number to see who answered (adding a wasted > revenue-call path to the wreckage). Most often it would turn out to be the > home telephone number of a repair supervisor in West Sweatsock, Montana, > who > had been called because a somebody who protested the policy that the > repairman going fishing meant some problem would not be addressed for > several days. So he put a check mark next to the number and moved on. > > Which meant the number would show up on the next month's bill. And it > would > again not be recognized from memory. And so forth and so on. > Until eventually, after several months, the number would be recognized, > check-marked without drama, and disappear forever from the bill. > > Lastly, in later years I was assigned to the the Revenue Accounting > organization (to write programs for printing telephone books) and came to > realize that there were a LOT of people in RA working with a LOT of people > in the Chief Special Agents organization using a LOT of computer time to > analyze Toll records for fraud patterns. > > Oops, not quite lastly.... Looking back at my Toll Plant days in the > heyday > of Captain Crunch--there were a lot engineering hours redesigning Toll > equipment, and plant hours modifying or replacing equipment do defeat the > engineering efforts of the Blue Box Boys. > > -- > "Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a > tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid." > > --Albert Einstein >
