Anthony Bellanga (anthonybellanga@withheld) Mon, 03 Jan 2005 23:12:24 -0700

Review Index Sorted By: [ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ] Next message: Monty Solomon: "Linksys Wireless-G Media Link" Previous message: Tony P.: "Re: Go Ahead, Just Try to Disappear" TELECOM Digest: Home Page

Pat, please do not display my email address in my post, neither in the "from" line, nor in the "reply-to" line. I don't need to be spammed from outside anymore so than I presently am. Thanks. In "Re: Long Distance From Next Door", Wes Leatherock wrote: > There are many cases where local calling areas cross LATA boundaries, > so this is generally, in itself, irrelevant. One of the noted > interstate metropolitan exchanges is Kansas City, Mo.-Kan., which is > in two LATAs but one local calling area. While the MO and KS sides of the Kansas City Metro area are obviously in different states, and also in separate NPAs (816 Kansas City MO and 913 Kansas City KS), and there has been mandatory ten-digit local dialing between the two state and NPA sides for several years now, i.e., no "protected" c.o.codes in each NPA for at least the metro area, both the KS (913) and MO (816) sides of the Kansas City Metro area are in the same LATA, #524, an SBC LATA. LATAs can and do cover parts of multiple states. But there are other instances of local calling areas which do cross LATA boundaries, some happen to also be interstate and postdivestiture EAS calling. In all such inter LATA local calling cases that didn't already exist prior to divestiture, in addition to the state or several state regulatory bodies having to approve the new EAS (local) calling, the FCC must also give its nod to such inter LATA local calling, even if it is inter LATA but intra state.

Post Followup Article	Use your browser's quoting feature to quote article into reply
Go to Next message: Monty Solomon: "Linksys Wireless-G Media Link"
Go to Previous message: Tony P.: "Re: Go Ahead, Just Try to Disappear"
TELECOM Digest: Home Page