How is that *not* the fault of the telco?
What other factors? OK, I was not aware that the telcos had lobbied to set up the tarriff you described. But they asked for it.
Michael D. Sullivan wrote:
When I purchased a Yellow Pages ad from SBC a few years ago, my account number looked a lot like a telephone number. But it wasn't. It was something like 216-R##-###-#### (216 was the area code I was in at the time, and the #'s represent random numbers that I don't remember). It seemed pretty obvious that they bill for directory services using the same billing system that bills for POTS services. Verizon could use a similar account numbering system. Sure, there are costs involved in implementing it, but I have no sympathy for any of the telcos where services over copper are involved, since they milked lots of money out of that copper for so many years before DSL came along, and didn't do many upgrades.
Technically, what you're describing isn't a technical issue, it's a billing issue.
JustThe.net - Apple Valley, CA -- 888.480.4NET (4638) Steven J. Sobol, Geek In Charge / snipped-for-privacy@JustThe.net / PGP: 0xE3AE35ED
"In case anyone was wondering, that big glowing globe above the Victor Valley is the sun." -Victorville _Daily Press_ on the unusually large amount of rain the Southland has gotten this winter (January 12th, 2005)[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: I have had AT&T billing numbers in the past which were my area code, followed by a seven digit number which *appeared at first* to be a telephone number except that it was not a dialable number, such as 137-xxxx or 109-xxxx. I am sure the telcos could deal with this issue with a minimum of hassle. PAT]