hrs1@cbnewsi.att.com (Herman R Silbiger) (01/11/91)
In article <15888@accuvax.nwu.edu>, ehopper@ehpcb.wlk.com (Ed Hopper) writes: > I grew up in El Paso, Texas, along the Mexican border. One of the > more unfortunate aspects of the MFJ is the removal of the LEC from > special international toll agreements. > Before the MFJ, calls to Juarez, Mexico (a city that is virtually > contiguous to El Paso on the south side of the Rio Grande) were > dialable via a "42" prefix to the five digit Juarez telephone number. > Costs were minimal. They were handled via a cable that ran from El > Paso main CO across a bridge over the Rio Grande to Juarez main. > Then came the MFJ. "Special deals" like this went away and the 905 > NPA applied. Rates went higher. > Now, Juarez calls are fully integrated in the international LD system. > 011+Country Code+ etc. > > Is this progress? > > [Moderator's Note: Is this progress, you ask? Well, Judge Green must > think so. There were numerous arrangements like you describe along the > Canadian border also in the past, allowing local calling between small > towns on the US side and the Canadian side. Friends communicating with > friends, without making an 'international issue' out of it. PAT] In several instances local telcos have been allowed to keep inter-LATA calling capabilities. For example, you can call between northern New Jersey and New York City by meens of NJ Bell or NY Tel, dpending on which side of the Hudson River your phone is. I don't know if the reason that this international capability was discontinued was due to the MFJ, or because the local telco decided not to ask for it to be continued. By the way, this cross international border local service is common around the world. for example, from Geneva (that's in Switzerland for you US geography buffs, you can reach the towns just over the border in France by using a code that looks like a Swiss city code (area code) rather tha dialing the French country code. Herman Silbiger hsilbiger@attmail.com