telecom@ucbvax.UUCP (12/31/85)
Since Touch-Tone (tm) DTMF service was first introduced in the early
60's by New York Telephone (now part of the NYNEX holding company), there has
always been an additional recurring monthly charge for central office lines and
PBX trunks so equipped. In the "beginning", this cost was understandable since
DTMF apparatus had to be installed in what were originally rotary dial central
offices. The cost of adding DTMF receivers to crossbar office originating
registers was significant. On a very limited and selective basis certain SxS
offices were equipped with DTMF register-senders to provide this service, also
resulting in a significant cost.
Once installation of No. 1 ESS began, virtually every installation had
dial pulse registers which handled DTMF. As a matter of course all No. 1A and
newer ESS were equipped with DTMF capability for all dial pulse registers.
In upstate New York, at least 80% of all crossbar central offices have
been replaced by ESS; at least 70% of all SxS CDO's have also been replaced by
No. 2 or No. 3 ESS. I am not aware of any panel offices now functioning in
upstate New York; any remaining crossbar is now No. 5 with all originating
registers equipped for DTMF.
My question (and gripe): How can New York Telephone continue to justify
an additional monthly charge of over $ 5.00 for Touch-Tone service?
From a traffic engineering standpoint, DTMF is far more efficient than
rotary dial; a given central office requires far less dial pulse registers for
DTMF than for rotary dial, since the register holding time for DTMF is less
than one third of that for rotary dial. It is to the economic *advantage* of a
telephone company to have its subscribers DTMF.
I would like to know if other former Bell System operating companies
continue to perpetuate the anachronistic charge for Touch-Tone service, and
whether anyone has attempted (and succeeded) in having have such tariffs
withdrawn.
==> 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!/ <==
==> burl!gladys!/ <==
==> "Have you hugged your cat today?" ihnp4!/ <==lars@ACC-SB-UNIX.ARPA (Lars Poulsen) (01/09/86)
I am appalled that NYNEX (?) would charge $5.- per month. GTE here (Santa Barbara, CA) charges $1.-/month, and I am a bit upset about that. I figured that I wouldn't pay it, since they had no means of denying me tone service anyway, so I carefully registered the pulse-dialing equivalents of whatever tone instruments I had, until the last time I moved when they didn't even ask me any more what instruments I had. Then last week, I got a letter saying that on January 21st, they'd install new equipment to deny tone service to lines that didn't pay for it, and I could "upgrade" my line "for free" now (i.e. no service charge, just an increased monthly charge) or if I asked for the upgrade after Jan 21st, they'd charge $15 for the upgrade. So I crumbled and let them get away with it. Question: I know that it's a fraud in the sense that not only does it not cost them extra to provide tone service (in fact it saves them money, as Larry Lippman pointed out) (and they really oughta charge for PULSE service) but I'm sure it will - given the present equipment - actually COST them to DENY tone service. But does the facility to deny tone service actually exist ? Just wondering .... Lars Poulsen @ Advanced Computer Communications <Lars@ACC.ARPA>
telecom@ucbvax.UUCP (01/11/86)
I, too, got a letter from Pacific Bell saying their equipment noticed that I was using a tone phone without paying for tone dialing. They by default would start charging for it, but they gave me a number to call. I told the lady I returned that phone, so she said they would fix my line so it wouldn't accept tones. It still accepts tones, but I don't tone dial that much, anymore, so they won't hastle me. Meanwhile, I gave my parents back east a tone phone which DOESN'T work for them, so I had to get them a pulse model. Since their exchange went through some big changes a short time back, I have to think they have new equipment. So there must be a way to ignore tones from people who don't pay the surcharge. I expect someday they will announce that it's just as much trouble to accept pulses as tones, so they will want to hit everybody for the surcharge.
FTD%MIT-OZ@MIT-MC.ARPA ("David D. Story") (01/11/86)
It was ano olde AT&T trick when the introduction of Touch (tm) Tone was supposed to save the busy executive time. While being cheaper to operate, AT&T ergonomics (The wonderful world of Bell) had the leverage to charge for touch tone because they were originally meant for business and justifable for the rate increases. I originally saw the TT at New York's World Fair. That's 25 years ago. Well as far as your problem, don't pay and wait and see.
telecom@ucbvax.UUCP (01/12/86)
Unfortunately, they can deny touch-tone service. When I moved recently
I went for pulse dial rate. One day, out of curiostity, I switched my
phone to TT and dialed. It was ignored completely and dial tone was
still present. Sorry for the news.
Wayne Thompson
..{bene,mordor,nsc,oliveb,pyramid,ucbvax}!tolerant!waynetcmoore@BRL.ARPA (Carl Moore, VLD/VMB) (01/13/86)
New York World's Fair was in 1964-65. (Not yet 25 years ago.)
JARRELLRA@VTVAX5.BITNET (Ronald A. Jarrell) (01/14/86)
When I used to live in the D.C. area (C&P telephone..) if you had a real live A.T.&T phone and *didn't* have touch-tone service, you didn't even get the tones.. In fact, hitting a button wouldn't break dial-tone as I recall... -Ron Jarrell
telecom@ucbvax.UUCP (01/14/86)
In article <8601090556.AA03648@ACC-SB-UNIX.ARPA> you write: >I am appalled that NYNEX (?) would charge $5.- per month. >GTE here (Santa Barbara, CA) charges $1.-/month, and I am >a bit upset about that. I figured that I wouldn't pay it, >since they had no means of denying me tone service anyway, >so I carefully registered the pulse-dialing equivalents of >whatever tone instruments I had, until the last time I moved >when they didn't even ask me any more what instruments I had. > >Then last week, I got a letter saying that on January 21st, they'd >install new equipment to deny tone service to lines that didn't >pay for it, and I could "upgrade" my line "for free" now (i.e. no >service charge, just an increased monthly charge) or if I asked for >the upgrade after Jan 21st, they'd charge $15 for the upgrade. >So I crumbled and let them get away with it. >Question: I know that it's a fraud in the sense that not only does it >not cost them extra to provide tone service (in fact it saves them >money, as Larry Lippman pointed out) (and they really oughta charge for >PULSE service) but I'm sure it will - given the present equipment - >actually COST them to DENY tone service. But does the facility to >deny tone service actually exist ? > >Just wondering .... > > Lars Poulsen @ Advanced Computer Communications > <Lars@ACC.ARPA> Yes, GTE installed a new, digital exchange in West Lafayette some 18 months ago, and unless you "subscribe" to tone service, you do not get it. Before the new exchange facilities were put in, you had the service, whether you paid or not. GTE gave perhaps ten days notice and when I returned from vacation, my tone phones would not work. They tried to collect for the installation, but I talked them out of it .... long story. Incidentally, I just read in the paper that the $1.20 monthly tone charge is being reduced by several Indiana telcos (GTE, Bell) because of higher than expected income from access charges - I don't quite understand the logic. For residence phones reduction is about $0.40, more for business - should certainly be zero, but tell that to your Public Service Commission lawyers. Hope this helps, F. J. Friedlaender @ Purdue University (fritzj@ee.purdue.edu)
telecom@ucbvax.UUCP (01/14/86)
> I am appalled that NYNEX (?) would charge $5.- per month. It got worse. There was a New York Telephone (part of NYNEX) rate increase which took effect several weeks ago, and I just received a printout of our `Customer Service Record' today. The charge is now... $ 6.81/month. Since we have a PBX, all of our lines (even our dial-up data lines) are considered PBX trunks and have this monthly charge, which carries the USOC code of `TJB'. Our basic PBX trunk charge (including FCC access charge) is now $ 12.52 per month - which I don't consider too bad. The Touch-Tone charge sucks, though. > GTE here (Santa Barbara, CA) charges $1.-/month, and I am > a bit upset about that. I figured that I wouldn't pay it, > ... > Then last week, I got a letter saying that on January 21st, they'd > install new equipment to deny tone service to lines that didn't pay for it, > ... > I'm sure it will - given the present equipment - actually COST them to DENY > tone service. But does the facility to deny tone service actually exist ? It's a piece of cake to deny Touch-Tone (DTMF) service in any ESS office. While the dial pulse registers are capable of accepting both rotary dial or DTMF during a call (but not mixed), the ESS processor checks its `Directory Number Record' for the line requesting dial tone, and if DTMF is NOT permitted, the dial pulse register will be blocked from accepting DTMF. So, DTMF permission is just a lil' ole binary bit. In a crossbar office, to deny DTMF service the line merely needs to be assigned (by jumpering) to a line link frame location where the vertical location tells the dial tone marker to deny DTMF service. Because line equipment location to directory number translation occurs elsewhere in the crossbar office, changing link link frame location does not affect the directory number. Denying DTMF service could be a 10 to 15 minute job for a switchman in a crossbar office. It is my understanding that line link frame assignments are made in a crossbar office for traffic distribution purposes, and are made to INSURE DTMF service, but that no active effort is made for assignment to DENY DTMF service. However, anything is possible... In a step-by-step office which is equipped with DTMF-to-pulse converters between the line finder and first selector, to deny DTMF service merely requires that the subscriber line be connected to a line finder group without such converters - also a 10 to 15 minute job for a switchman. I don't know much about any other type of central office equipment which might be around which does not fit into the above categories. The point I am, trying to make is this: I STRONGLY SUSPECT that your telephone company is pulling your leg about ``installing new equipment'' to deny DTMF service. If the central office is presently equipped for DTMF, then it is virtually certain that it ALREADY has the capability of denying DTMF service. If I were to hazard a wild guess, I would speculate that you are in a crossbar office and that the letter you received is a scare tactic to increase revenue - because I don't believe that the telephone company really WANTS to have switchmen spend umpteen hours changing jumpers to specifically deny DTMF service. If you want to have some "fun", you might wish to challenge your telephone company on this point and demand that they tell you EXACTLY what new equipment they are installing - since I am skeptical that there IS any. Telephone companies can get away with a lot of things, but one thing which state Public Utilities Commissions take a dim view of is an outright lie. ==> 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!/ <==
telecom@ucbvax.UUCP (01/15/86)
In article <8601090556.AA03648@ACC-SB-UNIX.ARPA> you write: >GTE here (Santa Barbara, CA) charges $1.-/month, and I am ... >actually COST them to DENY tone service. But does the facility to >deny tone service actually exist ? > >Just wondering .... > > Lars Poulsen @ Advanced Computer Communications > <Lars@ACC.ARPA> The facility DOES exist. Northern Telecom SL-1's, including the SL-100 Central Office switch is programmable (from the keybd) on a line by line basis for 10,or 20 pulses, digitone, or "true" DTMF, the switch doesn't care. Its all done in the software. -Rodger Cloud