bill%gauss@gatech.edu (bill) (02/17/91)
[Moderator's Note: Bill Berbenich sent this from the AP wire; Tom
Coradeschi <tcora@pica.army.mil> sent the same story from the {Star
Ledger} on Thursday. My thanks to both of you. PAT]
WASHINGTON (AP) -- Travelers fed up with high long-distance phone
charges at airports, hotels and other public places would get a break
under new rules proposed by the Federal Communications Commission.
The prospective rules, unveiled at a commission meeting Wednesday,
would guarantee travelers easier access to the long-distance company
they use at home.
That means anyone making "dial 0" calls could avoid using so-called
operator services companies that have rates that may be two or three
times what major long-distance carriers such as American Telephone &
Telegraph Co., MCI and US Sprint charge.
The agency also invited public comment on a plan to compensate
owners of pay phones from which some long-distance calls are made.
The commission also:
-- Proposed either changing or eliminating rules that prohibit
companies offering cellular telephone service from also selling
equipment. The companies could not require customers to purchase
equipment to receive service.
-- Decided to consider whether it will preempt some local statutes
that outlaw mobile scanners. Some cities and states forbid mobile
scanners because they can pick up police, fire and ambulance channels.
But some FCC-licensed ham radio operators have been fined and their
equipment confiscated for violations.
Congress, in last year's Telephone Operator Consumer Services
Improvement Act, required the FCC to design a plan to ensure that
people using hotel and public telephones have access to the
long-distance carriers they choose.
In many cases, coin and hotel phones owners, called aggregators,
route all calls to a single operator services company, which has a
contract with long-distance carriers that actually carry the calls.
The phone owners usually receive a commission, which can be as high
as twenty percent, from the operator company for each call made.
But customers have complained about the high cost of some of the
calls and about not being able to use their presubscribed long distance
companies.
"Even as we speak, there are people in the Atlanta airport beating
on the walls and banging on telephones trying to figure out how to get
access to their long-distance companies," Commissioner Ervin Duggin
said.
The commission could force all long distance carriers to set up
either 800- or 950-prefix telephone numbers for a customer to use in
gaining access to their systems. Or it could require that public
phones allow a customer to dial the "10XXX" access code assigned to
his company.
US Sprint's access code, for instance, is 10333.
The proposed rules would give aggregators a year to unblock access
to 10XXX numbers at pay phones. Hotel and other internal phone systems
would be given three years to allow access to 10XXX numbers. If they
replaced their equipment before then, they would have to make the
change at that time.
MCI and US Sprint customers already can use either 800 or 950
numbers or dial a 10XXX access code.
But AT&T depends solely on the access code. That company has
lobbied the FCC to require 10XXX access, saying it would cost as much
as $50 million to develop and $250 million a year to operate an 800
access number.
"It would be costly for us to set up an 800 network," AT&T spokesman
Jim McGann said.
Aggregators have worried that unblocking access to 10XXX numbers
could lead to fraud. Some local phone systems can't distinguish
between charge or collect calls and direct-dialed calls. The owner of
the phone could be stuck with the charges from a direct-dialed call.
The FCC also must decide whether pay phone owners should be
compensated for the access calls. Currently, anyone using an access
number pays only the long-distance company.
The North American Telecommunications Association has asked that
the owners be allowed to charge 25 cents for each call.
Bill Berbenich bill@eedsp.gatech.edu
Georgia Tech, School of Electrical Engineering
-- and --
Tom Coradeschi <tcora@pica.army.mil>jimmy@icjapan.info.com (Jim Gottlieb) (02/18/91)
In article <telecom11.122.1@eecs.nwu.edu> the AP Wire Service writes: > MCI and US Sprint customers already can use either 800 or 950 >numbers or dial a 10XXX access code. > But AT&T depends solely on the access code. That company has >lobbied the FCC to require 10XXX access, saying it would cost as much >as $50 million to develop and $250 million a year to operate an 800 >access number. I can partially understand AT&T's reluctance to set up an 800 number, given the marketing costs involved and the fact that 10XXX exists. But I think they should bite the bullet. 10XXX will never provide the access that an 800 number does. The problem is that 10XXX+0+ must, by necessity, be blocked quite often. Go into most large comapnies and ask to use the phone. You will usually be offered a telephone that is restricted to local calls and 800 numbers. The business can not allow any type of 0+ calling because they can not risk that you may dial 0+ and make the call person-to-person or do some other billing that will come back to them. Hotels usually have toll terminal trunks to get around this problem, but ordinary businesses do not have such lines, and must therefore block 0+. AT&T must get a nationwide 950 or 800 number if it wishes that its customers be able to use AT&T long distance from any telephone. Jim Gottlieb Info Connections, Tokyo, Japan E-Mail: <jimmy@denwa.info.com> or <attmail!denwa!jimmy> Fax: +81 3 3237 5867 Voice Mail: +81 3 3222 8429
peter@taronga.hackercorp.com (Peter da Silva) (02/21/91)
Re: AT&T versus 800 number access. Yes, now that equal access is here AT&T is at a disadvantage. I carry a Sprint FONcard around simply because I can't depend on getting through to AT&T on my Universal card. peter@taronga.uucp.ferranti.com
schwartz@uunet.uu.net (S. H. Schwartz) (02/21/91)
In article <telecom11.129.7@eecs.nwu.edu> Jim Gottlieb <jimmy@denwa. info.com> writes: > AT&T must get a nationwide 950 or 800 number if it wishes that its > customers be able to use AT&T long distance from any telephone. ... as long as it isn't a COCOT. One such animal in Boston tried to take $4.00 from me for an 800 number. Granted, it's an exception -- most phones of any gender permit free 800 calls -- but there's nothing to stop a COCOT-meister from inventing his own charges. S. H. Schwartz schwartz@nynexst.com Expert Systems Laboratory 914-683-2960 NYNEX Science and Technology Center White Plains, NY 10604 [Moderator's Note: I don't see why AT&T has to get an 800 number. The rules established for this plainly call for equal access via 10xxx, and thus far, AT&T has been insisting everyone follow the rules. I've heard all the arguments about fraud and difficulty in billing 10xxx calls, but that is the COCOT owner's problem ... not AT&T's. PAT]
arnold%audiofax.com@mathcs.emory.edu (Arnold Robbins) (02/22/91)
In article <telecom11.143.6@eecs.nwu.edu> The Moderator Notes: >[Moderator's Note: I don't see why AT&T has to get an 800 number. The >rules established for this plainly call for equal access via 10xxx, >and thus far, AT&T has been insisting everyone follow the rules. I've >heard all the arguments about fraud and difficulty in billing 10xxx >calls, but that is the COCOT owner's problem ... not AT&T's. PAT] Wrong. It's your problem and my problem. I.e., *the customer*. I don't care where I happen to be travelling, if I want to use AT&T to make a long distance call and I can't, then it's my problem. If getting to ATT through an 800 number works where 10xxx doesn't, then that makes life easier for *the customer*, the guy who buys the service and keeps all these folks in business. Pat's point is fine, in theory. But we all know about the difference between theory and practice. Arnold Robbins AudioFAX, Inc. 2000 Powers Ferry Road, #200 / Marietta, GA. 30067 INTERNET: arnold@audiofax.com Phone: +1 404 933 7612 UUCP: emory!audfax!arnold Fax-box: +1 404 618 4581 [Moderator's Note: But the fact that you cannot access AT&T via 10288 is not AT&T's fault. It is a greedy private operator who is denying access illegally. What is to prevent the same greedy operator from blocking access to 950 numbers if desired, or assessing some outrageous surcharge for calling an 800 number, both of which would make it impossible or impractical to use AT&T? The standard set up by the FCC to access the carrier *of your choice* was via 10xxx routing. If a greedy operator decides to deny you your choice of long distance carriers because his deal with that carrier is not as lucrative as with another, then your complaint is with that operator. What the local telcos should do is whenever they find 10-anything access being tampered with at the subscriber level is cut the the service off entirely until the subscriber agrees to bring himself into compliance with the regulations. Then watch the COCOT owner squeal about how his commissions went down that month. Down to zero! PAT]
peter@taronga.hackercorp.com (Peter da Silva) (02/24/91)
> [Moderator's Note: But the fact that you cannot access AT&T via 10288 > is not AT&T's fault. Who cares whose fault it is? It's AT&T that's losing revenues because of it, and AT&T's customers who are suffering or switching. > It is a greedy private operator who is denying access illegally. What, you mean it's illegal for my place of employment to block 10288 on their PBX? Back when I was doing feild service, was it our customer's responsibility to provide 10xxx at their place of business? I think not. peter@taronga.uucp.ferranti.com [Moderator's Note: This is like Deja Vu day at the Digest! :) This is another topic we covered (how long ago now?) ... and I think everyone agreed with you that whoever owns the phone(s) can do as they please. But in this instance we are talking about *public pay phones* or phones in hotel rooms or otherwise used by the public. Phones for use by the public should be in compliance, which means having the ability to use 10xxx codes for the carrier of choice. PAT]
sbrack@hpuxa.ircc.ohio-state.edu (Steven S. Brack) (02/25/91)
What is the legality of a property rentor blocking access of 10xxx numbers from its renters' phones? I rent housing from a large university, with its own PBX (actually a slightly scaled-down telco switch serving about 30,000 phones). Every dormitory room has its own phone. UNITS, the university telco, runs its own LD operation, which involves giving each subscriber an access code, which is intercepted by the university switch, which then completes the call through <I assume> a regular LD carrier. I have an ATT calling card that offers a fair discount, and I would like to use it to place LD calls from my phone. All combinations of 10288, including using outside line designators, fail. When I dial an Ohio Bell operator (9-0) (9-0-0 doesn't work at all, I am informed that LD is not allowed from my phone, and I'm not connected to AT&T. My question: Can they do this? If so, what is the legal justification? Steve Brack Telecommunications Engineering The Ohio State University Columbus, OH 43210-1211 sbrack@hpuxa.ircc.ohio-state.edu sbrack@ewf.eng.ohio-state.edu (Avoid sending here, if possible) [Moderator's Note: I don't think there is any legal justification when the telco or (in your case pseudo-telco) has a captive customer base by not allowing installation of phones from off campus, etc. I think it passes legal muster when a private organization restricts employee phones like that. It is legal since I guess employees have no automatic right to make personal calls on company phones. It is a pity how some of these universities want to play telephone company and yet conveniently ignore the rules other telcos manage to follow. Some one or more people ought to start slapping them silly with lawsuits left and right until they wise up. PAT]
kabra437@pallas.athenanet.com (Ken Abrams) (02/26/91)
In article <telecom11.149.10@eecs.nwu.edu> arnold@audiofax.com writes: > In article <telecom11.143.6@eecs.nwu.edu> The Moderator Notes: >> [Moderator's Note: I don't see why AT&T has to get an 800 number. The >> rules established for this plainly call for equal access via 10xxx, >> and thus far, AT&T has been insisting everyone follow the rules. I've >> heard all the arguments about fraud and difficulty in billing 10xxx >> calls, but that is the COCOT owner's problem ... not AT&T's. PAT] > [Moderator's Note: But the fact that you cannot access AT&T via 10288 > is not AT&T's fault. It is a greedy private operator who is denying > access illegally. What is to prevent the same greedy operator from > blocking access to 950 numbers if desired, or assessing some In both your responses there is one very large, important point that you failed to take into consideration. Judge Green's order and all the associated technical changes that it provoked is binding only upon the companies that were a part of the old "Bell System". None of the other operating companies are legally obligated to have anything to do with "equal access" or 10XXX or 950. It seems that the other major players have elected to go along for reasons of their own but they are not REQUIRED to conform. Entire independent telcos are seemingly able to contract with whomever they please to carry their subscriber's toll traffic and are probably under no legal obligation to provide access from it's lines to other carriers. Assuming that I am not way off base, the only solution would appear to be 800 access to AT&T in these situations. Ken Abrams uunet!pallas!kabra437 Illinois Bell kabra437@athenanet.com Springfield (voice) 217-753-7965 [Moderator's Note: What is to prevent the same greedy operator who forbids 10xxx service from denying access to AT&T's 800 number? What is to prevent him from doing something like adding a surcharge on calls to 800 numbers like many COCOTs are doing? In other words, if the telco, or COCOT or whatever won't observe common courtesy by allowing 10xxx connections, why do you feel they will observe common courtesy by handling 800 calls in the heretofore traditional way of passing the calls without additional charge? The real complaint some of those guys have is they do not want you to reach AT&T. They do not want you to have any choice of carriers. After all, what sort of fool would use *their* service if there was any choice in the matter? If AT&T did install an 800 number I can guarentee you the same people who now block 10xxx would figure out a way to block 800-ATT-#### or else tack a tidy surcharge on for themselves. PAT]
K_MULLHOLAND@unhh.unh.edu (KATH MULLHOLAND) (02/27/91)
> [Moderator's Note: But the fact that you cannot access AT&T via 10288 > is not AT&T's fault. It is a greedy private operator who is denying > access illegally. What is to prevent the same greedy operator from Not necessarily ... in the case of the AT&T system 85, it *is* AT&T's fault that you cannot access 10288. The System 85 does not allow access to any 10xxx number. We depend on 95-xxxx numbers (which we route over FX lines to an equal access office, by the way) to get our users to MCI or Sprint. If we want to switch to another carrier for our 0+, we would be forced to block calls to AT&T, even though we do not want to. The University of New Hampshire is not offered any commission for our inter-Lata 0+ traffic by AT&T. We would, and probably will, take up Sprint's offer for commissions, but our users may resent not being able to use AT&T. We don't see an option. For now,this is just a nuisance. If the FCC chooses to rule that Universities are aggregators, we are in for major problems unless AT&T breaks down and offers 950 or 800 acccess. Question: Why does AT&T want to block themselves out of this business? Is it not as lucrative for them as for their competitors? Another Question: Does anyone have an opinion on how likely the FCC is to regard Universities as aggregators? Our opinion is that we are not because the new law defines aggregators as those providing service to "transient" customers. Our feeling is that University students, being resident enough to register to vote, are not transient. What do the rest of you think? Kath Mullholand UNH, Durham NH. [Moderator's Note: But registering to vote is a more solemn obligation, and not to be taken lightly. Voting is considered important enough that the law is interpreted as liberally as possible in order to avoid the slightest hint of discrimination. The idea is to make it as easy as possible to vote. Choosing a president is somewhat more important that choosing a long distance carrier, or so the thinking goes. I don't think AT&T is deliberatly locking themselves out of the 800/950 business because it is not lucrative for them. I think they are doing it to force the issue on 10xxx; their thinking being that if 10xxx access becomes an absolute, bar-none requirement on all switches, they will recapture a lot of revenue denied to them now anyway, thus making the whole long distance calling industry a lot LESS lucrative to the marginal operators out there now. And I sort of agree. Let's all play by the rules the 'others' tried so hard to install -- equal access and all -- and see who wins and who loses. I think you already know the answer. PAT]
crawford@enuxha.eas.asu.edu (Brian Crawford) (02/27/91)
In article <telecom11.159.1@eecs.nwu.edu>, sbrack@hpuxa.ircc. ohio-state.edu (Steven S. Brack) writes: > I rent housing from a large university, ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ You have no rights! :) Brian Crawford INTERNET (current): crawford@enuxha.eas.asu.edu PO Box 804 (permanent): crawford@stjhmc.fidonet.org Tempe, Arizona 85280 FidoNet: 1:114/15.12 USA Amateur: KL7JDQ
efb@ames.arc.nasa.gov (Everett F Batey) (03/03/91)
In article <telecom11.159.2@eecs.nwu.edu> kabra437 commented upon by
Moderator:
Who is thoughtful enough to write ..
<> failed to consider ... Green's order ... binding only upon ...
<> companies that were a part of the old "Bell System". None of the
No bad feelings, bro, but I am compelled as one who once raised my
right hand and promised to defend it ... Is/Was J. Green a strict
constitutionalist ... any sort of constitutionalist ... and has he read
US Constitution, re Equal Protection Amendment, and have you, Sir ?
efb@suned1.nswses.Navy.MIL efb@gcpacix.uucp efb@gcpacix.cotdazr.org
efb@nosc.mil WA6CRE Gold Coast Sun Users Vta-SB-SLO DECUS gnu
Opinions, MINE, NOT Uncle Sam_s | b-news postmaster xntp dns WAFFLE
[Moderator's Note: Good point, but I am not the person who made the
comments attributed to me. Those were the original author's, so I
shall leave it to him to respond direct to you if he wishes to do so.
I can't say I entirely disagree with you. PAT]