I'm not sure I agree.
The basis for the present day system was developed about 60 years when they developed the concept of an area code and exchange to give every US/Canadian telephone a unique number. Area Codes specificially had the middle digit of 0 and 1 while exchanges did not have a 0 or 1 as the middle digit. Exchanges were unique within an area code. Many people in the 1950s and 1960s had their telephone number changed so as to conform to the new layout. This was a good plan.
It is true different areas had different "toll" call rules. Some large metro areas used message units to meter suburban calls. Others used toll tickets with very small amounts.
Historically, in my state long distance rates matched interstate rates beyond the message unit area. In a neighborhood states, the rates were less.
In any event, we must remember that long distance rates were graduated by mileage. A short distance call didn't cost very much compared to a
3,000 mile call.The old plan had a key assumption: telephone service would be a monopoly and under the AT&T umbrella. In the 1983 that went all out the window and new things like LATAs and competing local telephone companies were designed. Further, the whole network had to be redesigned to allow easy access by the competitors.
Toll rates became flat for the nation. That benefited those who called coast-to-coast, but hurt others who called relatively close by, particuarly rather short distances (ie 30 miles).
My own home telephone area has about 20 exchanges assigned to it although in reality we need only 3. That's an enormous waste of numbers. Some towns have 40 exchanges when 5 will do, an even worse waste. As a result we discarded the old 0/1 scheme and create area codes in the blink of an eye.
Those who let the genie out of the bottle to create telephone competition only looked at one side of the ledger and ignored the other. They presumed they'd have _only_ the benefits of a free market but none of the problems. So today we have price gouging and out and out fraud for certain telephone services, as frequent posts to this newsgroup indicate.
[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: But that being the case, Lisa, why was Canada arbitrarily included as part of the 'USA numbering scheme' while Mexico was deliberatly excluded? The system back in the 1950's was deliberatly designed, IMO, to include all (mostly) English speakers and with certain other politics in mind, which was unfortunate. PAT]