Robert_Swenson.OSBU_North@xerox.com (03/27/91)
From my local paper: The California PUC will hold public hearings Wed, March 27, at 2pm and at 7pm at the CPUC Auditorium, State Office Building, 505 Van Ness Ave, San Francisco, and Thursday March 28 at 2pm and at 7pm at the Employment Development Department Building, 722 Capitol Mall, Auditorium Room 1098, Sacramento. Formal hearings will begin June 24 in San Francisco. Mail comments: Public Advisor's Office, California Public Utilities Commission, 505 Van Ness Ave, Room 5304, San Francisco, Calif. 94102 Proposed features: Caller ID $5.00 Install, $6.50 month Repeat Dialing 5.00 install, 3.50 month Call Block 5.00 3.50 Call Trace 10.00 10.00 per use Priority Ringing 5.00 4.00 Select Call 5.00 3.50 Forwarding Also planned is a per-call blocking feature which requires a three digit code before placing each call. Caller ID blocking on a per-line basis will NOT be provided.
malcolm@apple.com (Malcolm Slaney) (03/27/91)
In article <telecom11.244.3@eecs.nwu.edu> Robert_Swenson.OSBU_North@ xerox.com: > Proposed features: > Caller ID $5.00 install, $6.50 month > Repeat Dialing 5.00 install, 3.50 month Just how are these rates determined? My local phone bill is only $12.00 a month (for POTS). I realize that all these new features will help subsidize POTS but how do they decide how much profit to make? Certainly the PUCs don't just let the phone companies make a marketing decision and charge what the market will allow. Or, do they? Malcolm
jimmy@tokyo07.info.com (Jim Gottlieb) (04/01/91)
In article <telecom11.244.3@eecs.nwu.edu> Robert_Swenson.OSBU_North@ xerox.com writes: > Also planned is a per-call blocking feature which requires a three > digit code before placing each call. It's already implemented. Dial *67 from almost any Pacific Bell ESS-served line and you will hear a confirmation tone followed by dial tone.
Bob Yazz <yazz@prodnet.la.locus.com> (04/04/91)
Jim Gottlieb <jimmy@denwa.info.com> writes: > Dial *67 from almost any Pacific Bell ESS-served line and you will > hear a confirmation tone followed by dial tone. On my DMS-100 line in San Diego, I get a CPC disconnect and the DMS-100 "catch-all" recording -- "We're sorry, your call did not go thru". A couple of times the equipment got confused and required 30 seconds on-hook to be able to provide dialtone again. Could be because I'm on DMS-100 or because I'm in San Diego and the CLID trials are planned for LA and SF. Bob Yazz -- yazz@lccsd.sd.locus.com Payphone ripoff problems? Californians call Pac Bell at 800/352-2201, M-F, 8-5. From elsewhere try the FCC's enforcement division at 202/632-7553.
Al L Varney <varney@ihlpf.att.com> (04/05/91)
> Jim Gottlieb <jimmy@denwa.info.com> writes: >> Dial *67 from almost any Pacific Bell ESS-served line and you will >> hear a confirmation tone followed by dial tone. And yazz@prodnet.la.locus.com (Bob Yazz) responds: > On my DMS-100 line in San Diego, I get a CPC disconnect and the > DMS-100 "catch-all" recording -- "We're sorry, your call did not go > thru". A couple of times the equipment got confused .... But ... Jim specifically said "ESS-served" line. Strictly speaking, ESS(tm) is a Trademark of AT&T, and it is unlikely the DMS-100 can legally be called an "ESS". On the other hand, Jim probably meant an "Electronic Switch-served" line or a SPC (Stored Program Control) switch. > Could be because I'm on DMS-100 or because I'm in San Diego and the > CLID trials are planned for LA and SF. All of the above; the DMS probably doesn't have the right "BCS release" to support the feature, and you are not located in one of the two "test" areas. Even with the right software, the assignment of "*67" to a feature is office-specific. It should not confuse the equipment in any case.... Two other comments: Someone asked if No. 1 ESS(tm) could do CallerID. No. Nor does it speak SS7 (it will do CCIS6 however). Nor does it do Cancel Call Waiting. Note that SS7 (or CCIS6) is only needed to make CallerID work between switches. CLASS capabilities within a single switch are certainly possible in an "island" environment, sort of like single-switch ISDN. There are several non-SS7 single-switch CLASS offices in small single-switch communities. Al Varney, AT&T Network Systems Disclaimer: I don't speak for AT&T or any part thereof, nor am I part of the "Trademark" compliance group.
sichermn@beach.csulb.edu (Jeff Sicherman) (04/07/91)
April 1 at 2 PM I attended the California PUC hearing held in the
Anaheim city council chambers. Another hearing was held at 7 PM which
I did not attend. The official representatives at the hearing
included a member of the PUC, an administrative judge (I think),
representatives of the phone companies seeking authorization to
provide the CLASS services (Pacific Bell, Contel of California, and
GTE California), and one from TURN (Toward Utility Rate Normalization -
a consumer advocacy group). The latter sat as a panel in front of
the PUC officials and were there to answer questions from the public
and not as advocates for the organizations they represented. [In fact,
a minor disagreement erupted between the PacBell and TURN persons
after an answer to a question resulted in the TURN rep addressing the
PacBell rep who then complained that this was not an evidentiary
hearing ... Now children :-) ]
All the represented parties had material describing and defending
their positions which were handed out upon entering the hearing. The
contents were predictable: the phone companies wanted only per-call
blocking and the consumer groups wanted free per-line blocking. The
latter was based upon the already existing privacy afforded by the
current arrangement of no Caller-ID. The phone companies' view was
that per-call blocking guaranteed everyone's rights, including the
call recipient's.
PacBell presented a rather intricate argument to the effect that
per-call blocking signalled to the callee that the caller is
intentionally withholding his identity whereas per-line blocking only
tells that the caller 'happens' to subscribe to per-line blocking and
that the callee cannot discern anything about the caller's intent and
must answer the call to determine if it is a party who he wishes to
speak with. [ Ignoring what it does say: the caller has a strong
desire for privacy ] it's really the old economic issue: prevalent
call blocking lowers the value of the service to potential Caller-ID
subscribers.
PacBell also claimed that five years of market research showed that
per-call blocking met the needs of _all_ its customers and that
studies showed that per-call blocking satisfied the concerns of nine
out of ten of customers and that per-line blocking only increased
satisfaction by one percent. No details of the studies to gauge
validity were given. They also claimed that a Rochester, NY Caller-ID
trial appeared to support their contentions about the sufficiency of
per-call blocking.
The PUC itself has a Division of Ratepayer Advocates (DRA) whose
purpose is to represent the interests of utility customers both within
and before the PUC. It had its own handout describing the basic CLASS
services, blocking options, proposed schedule for implementation by
the companies, proposed rates, and its position on the offering of
CLASS services.
Briefly, though it has not issued a report or completed an
evaluation, it protested the PacBell application and proposed that
public participation hearing be held (hence this one) and that market
trials be held for six months including the various blocking options
to be followed by a survey of the services and blocking options:
per-call with no charge, per-call unblocking (blocking default),
per-line blocking with no unblocking, and per-call blocking with
operator assistance. Note that there is a 1989 law in California
requiring that callers be allowed to block the display of their
numbers on an individual basis (individual subscriber, not individual
call, I think). Also, the California constitution explicitly cites a
right to privacy.
I will not recount all the issues that were addressed since all
have been advanced at one time or another during the discussions here
and in the privacy group. However, it was interesting what tone and
focus the speakers took. About half the individuals who spoke were
senior citizens. This probably reflects the time of the meeting -
early afternoon. Many did not have a firm grasp of the more technical
details of Caller-ID or the other CLASS services but had well thought
out views on the privacy issues and the costs involved. They also
pointed out that many of the benefits of Caller-ID would not be
available to the public at large, including those on fixed and small
incomes who could not afford either the monthly charges or the
necessary equipment. In particular, those on Lifeline service - a
minimal rate, subsidized form of service for low-income subscribers -
could not obtain any advanced service features, CLASS included,
without losing their lifeline status.
Many of the more dire possibilities were not of interest to most
speakers, though there were featured in the consumer group position
papers. The major objection to Caller-ID in general was that it would
give telemarketers and other commercial 'consumers' and publishers of
phone number information access to their phone numbers. This would be
true even though many had PAID for unlisted phone numbers precisely to
reduce this. Per-call blocking would require them to take extra action
every call to enforce a protection they had already paid the phone
company for. Many pointed out that it was impractical to expect many
of the most vulnerable - children and some elderly or impaired - to
remember to dial the blocking code every time.
A major argument of the phone companies was that harassing phone
calls had declined significantly in areas which had Caller-ID and it
was widely known to the public. Speakers pointed out that the proposed
Call Trace would provide many of the same protections afforded for
that purpose without the liabilities. Nearly all speakers were
outraged that the companies were proposing a $10 per use charge for
call trace. Most pointed out that since this information is made
available to law enforcement only (at customer's request only) and is
not made available to the customer, it should be free as other
harassment-prevention services are now. PacBell's position is that the
high charge is necessary to prevent overuse [Why would someone overuse
something they can't get any direct benefit from?]
One speaker spoke in defense of the phone company position with a
long list of statistics from studies and experience in other parts of
the country that minimized most privacy concerns. At the beginning of
his presentation he said that he had no connection with either the
consumer groups or the companies. After he was through, the
administrative judge questioned him further at which time he revealed
he worked for a company that developed/marketed Caller-ID type devices
(potentially?). I'm not sure whether this reflected knowledge or just
suspicion on the part of the judge; at least two previous hearing were
held in northern California on March 27 and 28, 1991.
The issue of existing ANI-delivery to some 800 and 900 services was
brought up and was a surprise to many. The PacBell rep pointed out
this was a matter under the control of long distance carriers and
governed by FCC Tariff.
I and another individual proposed that both per-call and per-line
blocking be denied to business line subscribers as a way of
discouraging annoying and anonymous telemarketing; which would defeat
many of the potential benefits of Caller-ID. An analogy to third class
(bulk/junk) mail was made by some. [ Note that third class mail must
have a return address.]
Block-blocking came up only once but it was getting late (near the
five o'clock end to the three-hour hearing) and was confusing to some.
I would be interested in hearing about the content of other hearings.
BTW: After the hearing adjourned for dinner time, I went up to
talk briefly to the PacBell reps about some of the issues
and the fact that bill inserts were not adequate means to
inform and stimulate public discussion (perhaps they know
that !) and that news media needed to be used, especially
TV where everyone gets their information suited to modern
attention spans.
OB John Higdon type comment:
In the discussion with the PacBell reps the issue of their
(company, not personal) credibility and public-interest
arose. I raised the example of the long delayed removal of
touch-tone fees and ZUM extension LONG after the rate ruling
that went in their favor in return for such changes. She at
first tried to claim it was due to regulatory requirements
and then backed off this when challenged and then more-or-
less shrugged.
Jeff Sicherman