mel@wjvax.UUCP (Mel Tolentino) (12/28/85)
xxxx
Does anyone out there knows if it's possible
to not have a long distance service at all?
I mean where you can make local calls only
and not allow any long distance calls to be
made from your phone.
Or do any of the long distance services
offer a limited long distance where you
can only dial long distance for a certain
dollar amount each month.
Thanks for any info.
--
so now ya know
anything I say here is just
a figment of my imagination!
****************************
Mel Tolentino (Watkins-Johnson Co. San Jose, Calif.)
{pesnta,twg,ios,qubix,turtlevax,tymix,vecpyr,certes,isi}!wjvax!melron@brl-sem.ARPA (Ron Natalie <ron>) (12/30/85)
> Does anyone out there knows if it's possible > to not have a long distance service at all? > > I mean where you can make local calls only > and not allow any long distance calls to be > made from your phone. > > Or do any of the long distance services > offer a limited long distance where you > can only dial long distance for a certain > dollar amount each month. > > Thanks for any info. > An aquaintance of mine in South Carolina had that done to her phone because her daughter kept calling friends in New Jersey. I don't know the details. -Ron
phl@druhi.UUCP (LavettePH) (12/31/85)
>Does anyone out there knows if it's possible >to not have a long distance service at all? One group of Mountain Bell subscribers (Oregon, I think.) has already started a suit aimed at preventing Mountain Bell from forcing long distance on them. They claim that some of them haven't made a long distance call in over five years! PUC regulations in some areas prohibit the telephone company from collecting money from subscribers for any purpose other than *their own* services. I have heard of another suit pending to stop them from collecting the long distance bill for AT&T. The $1.00/month fee paid to the telephone company defrays what they pay to AT&T for connection to the long distance network. It is a local telephone company's charge to you, but the rest of the long distance bill goes to the another company. The Colorado PUC has already forbidden Mountain Bell from disconnecting local service from anyone who fails to pay his or her long distance bill. You might want to check into your local regulations. It seems you have several options: 1. Don't make any long distance calls. |-) 2. Make them and don't pay for them until the long distance carrier finds some way to disconnect you from using the long distance network. 3. When you get the multi-company signup sheet indicate that you don't want any service, refuse to pay the connection fee and take your case to court when the local company cuts you off. 4. Join (or form) a group bringing pressure on the legislators and PUCs to stop the telephone companys from forcing long distance service on unwilling customers. I don't know of any nation-wide organization. I do know a few people who feel that they are being ripped off for a service that they neither want nor require and would be glad to join such a group if it existed. If you think you have problems consider the plight of the Colorado subscriber. Mountain Bell has petitioned the Colorado PUC for permission to collect a surcharge from all residential subscribers for the creation of a fund to provide free service for the poor! This is in addition to a recent request for a 39% rate increase. (Action on this has been delayed, but for how long?) When I think of the present ripoffs like $1.27/m for an unlisted number to prevent them from publishing what I consider no one elses business but my own and $1.00/m for long distance services that I don't use and then add the coming rate increases for my basic service and for *forced* charity I begin to wonder if I really need a telephone. People laughed when they were told how their phone bills would skyrocket if the old Bell System was broken up. They don't seem to be laughing so much any more. - Phil
bzs@bu-cs.UUCP (Barry Shein) (01/05/86)
>...add the coming rate increases for my >basic service and for *forced* charity I begin to wonder if I >really need a telephone. I assume by *forced* charity you refer to subsidizing the existence of a very low level of service for the poor and elderly. The reason such subsidies are tacked on involuntarily is because of people's resistance to give voluntarily. If you are an exception and give generously then I suggest you deduct that amount from your yearly donations, if you are not an exception then you probably know why they have to yank it out of your pocket, if you prefer not to give anything at all ever then I sincerely hope you are never needy in any way. The thought, for example, of an elderly or invalid person not being able to afford a phone and hence access to emergency services should be disturbing, it is not a consumer issue except perhaps to the hard of heart. If you feel undeserving people also receive such help, that is another issue; one of policy, starving the truly needy because of abusers would obviously be a cruel and useless way to correct bureaucratic deficiencies. Sorry, but I find views like this disturbing. It also answers your question, you might need a phone in the event of emergency tho you are free to do what you like. Of course, if you don't have a phone and don't believe in charity, then when you feel a crushing pain in your chest you better have a $10 bill in your hand when you knock on *my* door to call for help. -Barry Shein, Boston University
bytebug@felix.UUCP (Roger L. Long) (01/07/86)
In article <82@druhi.UUCP> phl@druhi.UUCP (LavettePH) writes: >When I think of the present ripoffs like $1.27/m for an unlisted >number to prevent them from publishing what I consider no one >elses business but my own and $1.00/m for long distance services >that I don't use and then add the coming rate increases for my >basic service and for *forced* charity I begin to wonder if I >really need a telephone. Last year when I started the phone service for my new home, I decided that paying for unlisted service was a crock, so I "listed" my phones under another name with no address. In California, you can be listed in the phone book by whatever name you choose! I suggest that everyone pick a name (Jones, Fred) and "list" their unlisted numbers. -- Roger L. Long FileNet Corp {hplabs,trwrb}!felix!bytebug
suem@ihopb.UUCP (Sue McKinnell) (01/07/86)
> The $1.00/month fee > paid to the telephone company defrays what they pay to > AT&T for connection to the long distance network. It is > a local telephone company's charge to you, but the rest > of the long distance bill goes to the another company. > When I think of the present ripoffs like $1.27/m for an unlisted > number to prevent them from publishing what I consider no one > elses business but my own and $1.00/m for long distance services > that I don't use and then add the coming rate increases for my > basic service and for *forced* charity I begin to wonder if I > really need a telephone. Please, please, please don't perpetuate these misconceptions!!! The $1.00 "access" fee charged is *not* (repeat *NOT*) a fee for the local phone companies to connect to the long distance network. It has arisen because in the past long distance users subsidized the cost of supplying local loops (the actual cable from the local office to you house). This was a government-sanctioned policy. The current policy is to gradually transfer more of the cost of supplying local telephone service to the user by charging the "access" charge. So, the extra charge you are so upset about and trying to avoid by saying you don't use long distance is really a charge for having a telephone line connected *locally*. Sue McKinnell iihnp4!ihopb!suem -- Sue McKinnell ...!ihnp4!ihopb!suem IH 6N226 x5313
suze@terak.UUCP (Suzanne Barnett) (01/07/86)
> >...add the coming rate increases for my > >basic service and for *forced* charity I begin to wonder if I > >really need a telephone. > > I assume by *forced* charity you refer to subsidizing the existence > of a very low level of service for the poor and elderly. The reason > such subsidies are tacked on involuntarily is because of people's > resistance to give voluntarily. If you are an exception and give > generously then I suggest you deduct that amount from your yearly > donations, if you are not an exception then you probably know why > they have to yank it out of your pocket, if you prefer not to give > anything at all ever then I sincerely hope you are never needy in > any way. > > The thought, for example, of an elderly or invalid person not being > able to afford a phone and hence access to emergency services should > be disturbing, it is not a consumer issue except perhaps to the hard > of heart. If you feel undeserving people also receive such help, that > is another issue; one of policy, starving the truly needy because of > abusers would obviously be a cruel and useless way to correct > bureaucratic deficiencies. > > Sorry, but I find views like this disturbing. > > It also answers your question, you might need a phone in the event of > emergency tho you are free to do what you like. Of course, if you > don't have a phone and don't believe in charity, then when you feel a > crushing pain in your chest you better have a $10 bill in your hand > when you knock on *my* door to call for help. > > -Barry Shein, Boston University Regardless of how much I may CHOOSE to give to charities that I SELECT, being FORCED to financially support a charity that I DID NOT select is repugnant to me. The Phoenix area utilities have a program whereby one can contribute, by paying extra, to a fund that pays some or all of the utility bills for the poor. This is a GOOD solution. And it seems to work. I've lived without a telephone and do NOT consider it a necessity, EVEN FOR EMERGENCIES, unless, perhaps, one resides in the country, far from other people or stores that have a telephone that can be used in emergencies. We had a kitchen fire when we didn't have a phone. The neighbors called for us and the fire department was there in less than three minutes. (This was not the closest few neighbors, who weren't home, but those several doors away. The three minutes were from my first knock on the closest neighbor's door.) I have seen driving accidents where there was not a phone closer than 1/2 mile away. We had more trouble getting the ambulance to come at all, once we got hold of them than we had getting hold of them to begin with. Neither case had any serious results. Yes, some luck was involved, but it does illustrate that a phone is not a NECESSITY. On the other hand, food is, why haven't you suggested to your grocery store that they raise prices to help pay for food to be given to the poor? -- Merry Christmas! Suzanne Barnett-Scott uucp: ...{decvax,ihnp4,noao,savax,seismo}!terak!suze CalComp/Sanders Display Products Division 14151 N 76th Street, Scottsdale, AZ 85260 (602) 998-4800
hollombe@ttidcc.UUCP (The Polymath) (01/08/86)
In article <830@felix.UUCP> bytebug@felix.UUCP (Roger L. Long) writes: >Last year when I started the phone service for my new home, I decided >that paying for unlisted service was a crock, so I "listed" my phones >under another name with no address. In California, you can be listed >in the phone book by whatever name you choose! > >I suggest that everyone pick a name (Jones, Fred) and "list" their >unlisted numbers. But you'll still get annoying sales calls (to the wrong name, yet). That's the main reason for unlisted service, in my opinion, unless you're specifically trying to hide from someone. -_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_ The Polymath (aka: Jerry Hollombe) Citicorp(+)TTI 3100 Ocean Park Blvd. Geniuses are people so lazy they Santa Monica, CA 90405 do everything right the first time. (213) 450-9111, ext. 2483 {philabs,randvax,trwrb,vortex}!ttidca!ttidcc!hollombe
shaprkg@sdcrdcf.UUCP (Bob Shapiro) (01/10/86)
In article <729@ihopb.UUCP> suem@ihopb.UUCP (Sue McKinnell) writes: >> The $1.00/month fee >> paid to the telephone company defrays what they pay to >> AT&T for connection to the long distance network. It is >> a local telephone company's charge to you, but the rest >> of the long distance bill goes to the another company. > >> When I think of the present ripoffs like $1.27/m for an unlisted >> number to prevent them from publishing what I consider no one >> elses business but my own and $1.00/m for long distance services >> that I don't use and then add the coming rate increases for my >> basic service and for *forced* charity I begin to wonder if I >> really need a telephone. > >Please, please, please don't perpetuate these misconceptions!!! >The $1.00 "access" fee charged is *not* (repeat *NOT*) a fee for >the local phone companies to connect to the long distance network. >It has arisen because in the past long distance users subsidized the >cost of supplying local loops (the actual cable from the local office >to you house). This was a government-sanctioned policy. The current >policy is to gradually transfer more of the cost of supplying local >telephone service to the user by charging the "access" charge. So, >the extra charge you are so upset about and trying to avoid by saying >you don't use long distance is really a charge for having a telephone >line connected *locally*. >Sue McKinnell iihnp4!ihopb!suem >-- > >Sue McKinnell >...!ihnp4!ihopb!suem >IH 6N226 x5313 As much as I despise the phone company, I would like to make one point. I believe that the long distance access permits others to make calls to you as well as you making calls to others. Thus you might be using the access even though you aren't paying for the call. That also holds true for 800 numbers which are long distance calls free to the caller. On the other hand nothing gripes me more than the message unit charges within a local area. I have a General Telephone phone in one part of LA. Literally across the street from me is a Pacific Telephone exchange. The people in the Pacific Telephone exchange can call another General Telephone exchange for free, and I must pay 23 cents for the first minute and 14 cents for each extra minute to call that same General Telephone exchange. My company gets a bill from General Telephone which is several feet tall. I suspect that if the phone companies were to eliminate the message unit charges they might be ahead of the game after they eliminate all of their paper factories and computers which are currently necessary to monitor and bill it. There is also talk now of the phone companies eliminating the unlimited calls for private residences (businesses pay for every call in our area today). This might more fairly cause the people who use the phone the most to pay their fair share (assuming that the basic rates were also reduced) but it begs the following questions: 1. There is no accounting information for the user to determine if the phone company makes a mistake. All the business receives today is a statement as to how many minutes/units are used but not which calls were made to generate those units. I refuse to assume that the phone company never makes mistakes any more than I do that the bank never makes an error on my checking account. On the other hand I am forced to trust the gas, water, and electric companies. 2. Some people use their phones almost exclusively as an input device. (airline res lines for example) They pay only the basic charge for the phone but keep their line busy literally 24 hours a day. This seems a bit unfair to me, but I have yet to think of any fairer way to handle it. Bob Shapiro
edg@micropro.UUCP (Ed Greenberg) (01/11/86)
In article <78@ttidcc.UUCP> hollombe@ttidcc.UUCP (The Polymath) writes: > >But you'll still get annoying sales calls (to the wrong name, yet). That's >the main reason for unlisted service, in my opinion, unless you're >specifically trying to hide from someone. > Yes, but they're easy to identify, and they weed out much junk. Hell, Charles S. Collier (named after a Shepherd-Collie named Charlie) even got junk mail... Once, an offer of a credit card! One gets junk calls on one's unlisted number, though not as many, and they don't presume to know your name. Charging for unlisted is a crock, but, since our society is full of crocks, it fits right in. -e -- Ed Greenberg | {hplabs,glacier}!well!micropro!edg MicroPro International Corp. | {ucbvax,decwrl}!dual!micropro!edg San Rafael, California | {lll-crg,ptsfa}!micropro!edg
wiener@idacrd.UUCP (Matthew P Wiener) (01/12/86)
> > If you think you have problems consider the plight of the Colorado > subscriber. Mountain Bell has petitioned the Colorado PUC for > permission to collect a surcharge from all residential subscribers > for the creation of a fund to provide free service for the poor! > This is in addition to a recent request for a 39% rate increase. > (Action on this has been delayed, but for how long?) > > When I think of the present ripoffs like $1.27/m for an unlisted > number to prevent them from publishing what I consider no one > elses business but my own and $1.00/m for long distance services > that I don't use and then add the coming rate increases for my > basic service and for *forced* charity I begin to wonder if I > really need a telephone. Sounds right, but if you want to complain honestly, return to the phone company all the money you have saved over the past ?? years by having long distance subsidize your local phone bill. It's easy to complain about being forced to be charitable, but not so easy to complain about being forced to benefit from charity. Until then, no sympathy from this corner. berkeley!brahms!weemba Matthew P Wiener Math Dept UCB Berkeley CA 94720
mark@cbosgd.UUCP (Mark Horton) (01/13/86)
In article <966@terak.UUCP> suze@terak.UUCP (Suzanne Barnett) writes: >Regardless of how much I may CHOOSE to give to >charities that I SELECT, being FORCED to financially support a >charity that I DID NOT select is repugnant to me. I assume, then, that Ms. Barnett and others who share her feelings are even more repulsed by the concept of TAXATION by the government. After all, those taxes go towards things like welfare, social security, and other payments to the poor which are essentially charity. And they are far from voluntary. While we're at it, you probably are opposed to paying higher prices at your neighborhood store to compensate for shoplifting, or to your doctor to compensate for malpractice insurance. But it happens. For any service you buy (electricity or gas, for example) you pay extra because of the deadbeats who won't pay their bills. Many of them aren't even poor. Mark
psfales@ihlpl.UUCP (Peter Fales) (01/13/86)
> I've lived without a telephone and do NOT consider it a necessity, > EVEN FOR EMERGENCIES, unless, perhaps, one resides in > the country, far from other people or stores that have a > telephone that can be used in emergencies. > > We had a kitchen fire when we didn't have a phone. The > neighbors called for us and the fire department was there in > less than three minutes. (This was not the closest few > neighbors, who weren't home, but those several doors away. The > three minutes were from my first knock on the closest > neighbor's door.) I have run into this attitude before (not just about phones) and find it somewhat disconcerting. Between the lines this seems to say "I don't need a phone as long as SOMEBODY ELSE has one that I can use." This works fine until everybody adopts the same attitude. Peter Fales ihlpl!psfales
matt@oddjob.UUCP (Matt Crawford) (01/14/86)
In article <2565@sdcrdcf.UUCP> shaprkg@sdcrdcf.UUCP (Bob Shapiro) writes: >I believe that the long distance access permits others to make calls to you >as well as you making calls to others. ... This is not true. I have a friend who recently got phone service (in area 607) and was assigned *no* long distance carrier and cannot make long distance calls, but can still receive them. (Very annoying for me!) > There is also talk now of the phone companies eliminating the unlimited >calls for private residences You have unlimited calls!?! Zowie! We have to buy a certain number of message units per month and then pay for any additional ones we use. > 1. There is no accounting information for the user to determine if the >phone company makes a mistake. I challenged Illinois Bell to document the huge message unit chages at my previous residence (a 7-adult household) and after a delay they took away the charges. Apparently they had no accounting information either. _____________________________________________________ Matt University crawford@anl-mcs.arpa Crawford of Chicago ihnp4!oddjob!matt
strickln@ihlpa.UUCP (Stricklen) (01/14/86)
> In article <2565@sdcrdcf.UUCP> shaprkg@sdcrdcf.UUCP (Bob Shapiro) writes: > > 1. There is no accounting information for the user to determine if the > >phone company makes a mistake. > I challenged Illinois Bell to document the huge message unit > chages at my previous residence (a 7-adult household) and after > a delay they took away the charges. Apparently they had no > accounting information either. A few years ago I also asked Illinois Bell to give me an accounting of my usage of these message units. They told me they could do so, but only if I was willing to pay some charge to defray their expenses. I told them not to bother. Steve Stricklen AT&T Bell Laboratories ihnp4!ihlpa!strickln
gadfly@ihuxn.UUCP (Gadfly) (01/15/86)
-- > >I suggest that everyone pick a name (Jones, Fred) and "list" their > >unlisted numbers. > > But you'll still get annoying sales calls (to the wrong name, yet)... True, but you'll know that's what they are the moment the callers ask for "Mr. Fred". This can be very handy, because you are on to them immediately. "Mr. Fred" can, for instance, be on extended vacation in Pago-Pago, or even deceased, if you want to hang up right away yet not be rude. I've lived in a house with such a listing, and would have loved to have seen the look on the saleman's face when I said one time, "I'm sorry, he's not here--he was murdered yesterday." -- *** *** JE MAINTIENDRAI ***** ***** ****** ****** 15 Jan 86 [26 Nivose An CXCIV] ken perlow ***** ***** (312)979-7753 ** ** ** ** ..ihnp4!iwsl8!ken *** ***
larry@kitty.UUCP (Larry Lippman) (01/16/86)
> There is also talk now of the phone companies eliminating the unlimited > calls for private residences (businesses pay for every call in our area > today). This might more fairly cause the people who use the phone the most to > pay their fair share (assuming that the basic rates were also reduced) but it > begs the following questions: > > 1. There is no accounting information for the user to determine if the > phone company makes a mistake. All the business receives today is a > statement as to how many minutes/units are used but not which calls were > made to generate those units. I refuse to assume that the phone company > never makes mistakes any more than I do that the bank never makes an error > on my checking account. On the other hand I am forced to trust the gas, > water, and electric companies. Most telephone companies will log local calls for a given month or two FOLLOWING a complaint about message unit charges, and furnish the subscriber with the details. However, this is after the fact. Telephone companies invariably stick to the story that they do not retain local message accounting details following the issuance of a monthly statement; a variation of this story is that detailed information with the called number is not normally recorded - only the net message unit charges. I have some doubts about this, but have never been able to obtain sufficient "inside" information to disprove these claims (revenue accounting practices is a VERY touchy subject with telephone companies). For a significant charge, some telephone companies will furnish a monthly magnetic tape containing all of the local message accounting details. The cost of this service precludes its use except for large businesses; a computer capable of reading the tape is also required. The most feasible way of keeping tabs on local message unit charges is for businesses with newer PBX's to get a feature called Station Message Detail Recording (SMDR), which will record on magnetic media all outside call details. SMDR will give a crude approximation of the telephone company charges. While we have SMDR of sorts on our PBX, it is not very accurate since it cannot detect answer supervision like the telephone company's equipment does; i.e., our SMDR "charges" for a call which never answered or was busy. > 2. Some people use their phones almost exclusively as an input device. > (airline res lines for example) They pay only the basic charge for the phone > but keep their line busy literally 24 hours a day. This seems a bit unfair > to me, but I have yet to think of any fairer way to handle it. I think the general feeling amongst telephone companies is one of "these things tend to even out" when it comes to this issue. After all, someone was charged for MAKING the calls. I have never heard of any plans to charge for incoming calls, but then again, anything is possible. As an aside, years ago New York Telephone never charged for incoming calls to mobile telephones (pre-cellular days) - only outgoing calls made by the mobile telephone user. Since mobile telephone "air time" was expensive, and since some mobile telephone users would call people and tell them to call right back, this billing practice of not charging for incoming calls was stopped. ==> Larry Lippman @ Recognition Research Corp., Clarence, New York <== ==> UUCP {decvax|dual|rocksanne|rocksvax|watmath}!sunybcs!kitty!larry <== ==> VOICE 716/741-9185 {rice|shell}!baylor!/ <== ==> FAX 716/741-9635 {G1, G2, G3 modes} duke!ethos!/ <== ==> seismo!/ <== ==> "Have you hugged your cat today?" ihnp4!/ <==
suze@terak.UUCP (Suzanne Barnett) (01/16/86)
> In article <966@terak.UUCP> suze@terak.UUCP (Suzanne Barnett) writes: > >Regardless of how much I may CHOOSE to give to > >charities that I SELECT, being FORCED to financially support a > >charity that I DID NOT select is repugnant to me. > > I assume, then, that Ms. Barnett and others who share her feelings > are even more repulsed by the concept of TAXATION by the government. > After all, those taxes go towards things like welfare, social security, > and other payments to the poor which are essentially charity. And > they are far from voluntary. I do not object to taxation. What I do object to about taxation, is that the current federal taxation system is unfairly distributed. If you're rich enough, you can invest enough money in various ways that you pay very low percentages of taxes compared with middle income individuals. The taxation differences between being married and single, for tax purposes are significant. They shouldn't be. Also, like most everyone, I feel that some things the government spends money on are inappropriate, either to be supporting at all, or the amount of money provided. In other cases, I feel not enough money is budgeted for things I do support. However, there is a big difference in taxation by a government and a surcharge by a private company. I can vote, and thus elect those in the government who control the various aspects of taxation. If I disagree with how they administer their office, I can vote against them. Polititions are sensitive to their constituents, either from the feeling that they have a responsibility to them, or from the feeling that if their constituents turn against them, they'll be elected out of office. (Yes, I realize we don't elect the IRS officials and don't directly control their actions. That is a point of aggravation.) I have no means of controlling a private company, of which I am a customer. > > While we're at it, you probably are opposed to paying higher prices > at your neighborhood store to compensate for shoplifting, or to your > doctor to compensate for malpractice insurance. But it happens. > For any service you buy (electricity or gas, for example) you pay > extra because of the deadbeats who won't pay their bills. Many of > them aren't even poor. > > Mark I couldn't agree with you more. -- Suzanne Barnett-Scott uucp: ...{decvax,ihnp4,noao,savax,seismo}!terak!suze CalComp/Sanders Display Products Division 14151 N 76th Street, Scottsdale, AZ 85260 (602) 998-4800
gwn@ihlpm.UUCP (Novak) (01/17/86)
> > In article <2565@sdcrdcf.UUCP> shaprkg@sdcrdcf.UUCP (Bob Shapiro) writes: > > > 1. There is no accounting information for the user to determine if the > > >phone company makes a mistake. > > I challenged Illinois Bell to document the huge message unit > > chages at my previous residence (a 7-adult household) and after > > a delay they took away the charges. Apparently they had no > > accounting information either. > > A few years ago I also asked Illinois Bell to give me an accounting of my > usage of these message units. They told me they could do so, but only if I > was willing to pay some charge to defray their expenses. I told them not to > bother. > > Steve Stricklen > AT&T Bell Laboratories > ihnp4!ihlpa!strickln I just ran into a similar problem and I did request a breakdown of my message unit. Two days later I received a photostat copy of all the calls I had made during the past month. I have not been told that there would be an extra surcharge for this and if one appears I will complain about it because they never told me about it. Gary W. Novak AT&T Bell Labs ihnp4!ihlpm!gwn