Jim.Redelfs@iugate.unomaha.edu (Jim Redelfs) (02/09/91)
On 30-JAN-1991, the Moderator wrote: > Here in the Chicago area we are seeing a shift away from those > obnoxious devices also, but not as quickly as other places. The 7-11 > stores here have the discretion to use the phone service of their > choice, but the two 7-11's I frequent both use genuine IBT phones > with LD defaulted to AT&T. > The 7-11 owner turned him down saying he had to use phones 'the > public would be happy with'. Many merchants are beginning to > discover the extra commission they receive isn't worth the hostility > they get from the public. PAT] I learned, the HARD way, that even calling LOCALLY, one must use caution "experimenting" with "Acme" Pay Phones, Inc. devices! As a TelCo employee, I receive a concession on all its services, including intra-lata toll AND local calls billed to my calling card. I didn't have my coins with me the other day and, needing to place a call home, I simply walked up to the coin phone and dialed 0+7d and entered my calling card number. My next bill made it obvious to me that my employee concession applies ONLY to such calls made from TELCO coins - NOT independent stations! Such a local, calling card-billed call, made from a U S WEST Communications set normally costs 37 cents. The call I made from the "Acme" station came to around $1.50!! Live and learn! JR Copernicus V1.02 Elkhorn, NE [200:5010/666.14] (200:5010/2.14) [Moderator's Note: It is interesting, isn't it, how the whole alternative telephone industry got started -- the non-telco, non-AT&T networks and instruments -- on the theory that AT&T / Ma Bell were such 'ripoffs' that had to be put in their place. And now the more you shop around; the more you use the competition, the better telco and 'genuine Bell' service looks. Some of us were saying 'I told you so' several years ago. I'm beginning to feel vindicated. PAT]
john@zygot.ati.com (John Higdon) (02/11/91)
On Feb 10 at 1:21, TELECOM Moderator writes: > And now the more you > shop around; the more you use the competition, the better telco and > 'genuine Bell' service looks. Some of us were saying 'I told you so' > several years ago. I'm beginning to feel vindicated. PAT] Yes, indeed, the more you shop around ... but is it not nice to be able to shop around? Do you honestly believe that 'genuine Bell' would be at the level it is today if it had no competition nipping at its heels? Do you think, for instance, that AT&T would even today be providing digital connections nationwide if it were not for Sprint and others? It is important also to remember that COCOTs are an aberation. They are a cancer on the body telecom. To say that the MFJ is solely responsible for COCOTs is akin to saying that modern medicine produced AIDS. COCOTs were created and continue to exist courtesy of the malignant neglect of our regulatory bodies various. COCOTs could be cleaned up overnight if the same enforcement enthusiasm was employed as is to ordinary street vendors. And it would happen for sure if the public would get off its complacent butt and demand through its legislature, regulatory agencies, and last but not least, its pocketbook the cleansing of this scourge. Please do not blame the marketplace and competition for something that exists with the cooperation of its victims. Did it ever occur to anyone that maybe the reason that 'Bell' phones are making a return is that market forces are coming to bear? If COCOTs become unprofitable because an informed public stops using them, or insists that all calls be carried by a legitimate IEC, owner-operators will ultimately migrate to some other business. The void created will be filled with utility phones. I still believe the benefits of the MFJ far outweigh the liabilities. Whenever you substitute 'marketplace' for 'monopoly' there will be glitches and inequities in the short term. Just look at the Soviet Union and its stuggle with 'capitalism' for now. But give the marketplace forces a chance to kick in before issuing blanket condemnations for a system. An "I told you so" at this point is premature. John Higdon | P. O. Box 7648 | +1 408 723 1395 john@zygot.ati.com | San Jose, CA 95150 | M o o !
kevin@gatech.edu (Kevin P. Kleinfelter) (02/15/91)
john@zygot.ati.com (John Higdon) writes: >On Feb 10 at 1:21, TELECOM Moderator writes: >> And now the more you >> shop around; the more you use the competition, the better telco and >> 'genuine Bell' service looks. Some of us were saying 'I told you so' >> several years ago. I'm beginning to feel vindicated. PAT] >Yes, indeed, the more you shop around ... but is it not nice to be >able to shop around? Do you honestly believe that 'genuine Bell' would >be at the level it is today if it had no competition nipping at its >heels? Do you think, for instance, that AT&T would even today be >providing digital connections nationwide if it were not for Sprint and >others? Indeed it IS important to be able to shop around. I find it fascinating that people will argue in favor of a return to a single, monolithic phone industry, yet noone seems to want to return to a single U.S. automobile manufacturer. Why is it that people want AT&T to be the only game in town for telecom, but no one wants Ford to be the only game in town for transportation? In the early days of the auto, you could buy a cheap car, with few features, and a choice of colors, as long as your color was black. If you didn't like it, you had to have a car custom-built. In the early days of telecom, you could get any service you wanted, as long as you wanted a service provided by Ma Bell. If you didn't like it, you could do without. Kevin Kleinfelter @ Dun and Bradstreet Software, Inc (404) 239-2347 {emory,gatech}!nanovx!msa3b!kevin Look closely at the return address. It is nanovx and NOT nanovAx.
john@zygot.ati.com (John Higdon) (02/17/91)
"Kevin P. Kleinfelter" <msa3b!kevin@gatech.edu> writes: > In the early days of telecom, you could get any service you wanted, as > long as you wanted a service provided by Ma Bell. If you didn't like > it, you could do without. The moment you introduce choices and competition, actually creating a marketplace, there is necessity for all (especially customers) to become informed and active in the commerce. While it is regrettable that the Aunt Millies of the world are forced to participate in a game not of their choosing, restricting the rest of us to Hobsen's choices is hardly fair either. Before divestiture, the regulators (the gummit) took care of us. There was no problem selecting carriers, services, or equipment. If we did not like what was offered, if it cost too much, or the service was not what was expected, it was very simple: we did without. Now we can select anything we want from whatever is available, from excellent to very poor. Granted, what we used to have was frequently better than the worst of what is available today, but today's best is better than ever. But we are, as a result, all thrust into the game of choices. We cannot just sit back and let "the telephone company" do it to us any longer. As Mr. Kleinfelter points out, no one seems to advocate the abolition of a free marketplace because he made a mistake purchasing a car or TV set. But listen to the cries of doom when a COCOT rips off someone for a few extra bucks on a long distance call. "It is all Judge Greene's fault." Baloney! If the public does not like COCOTs, it will not use them and they will go away. If the public is too stupid to know the difference, then it gets what it deserves. I refuse the have Big Brother take care of me because there are some among us who are too lazy to take care of themselves. I am a fan of divestiture. My only complaint is that the Judge stopped short of the ideal: competition in the LEC marketplace. Believe me, if such a thing existed now, my home phone would not be served by a 1948 crossbar switch. John Higdon | P. O. Box 7648 | +1 408 723 1395 john@zygot.ati.com | San Jose, CA 95150 | M o o !
sichermn@beach.csulb.edu (Jeff Sicherman) (02/17/91)
In article <telecom11.117.12@eecs.nwu.edu> msa3b!kevin@gatech.edu (Kevin P. Kleinfelter) writes: >john@zygot.ati.com (John Higdon) writes: >> On Feb 10 at 1:21, TELECOM Moderator writes: >>> And now the more you shop around; the more you use the >>> competition, the better telco and 'genuine Bell' service looks. >>> Some of us were saying 'I told you so' several years ago. I'm >>> beginning to feel vindicated. PAT] >> Yes, indeed, the more you shop around ... but is >> it not nice to be able to shop around? Do you honestly believe >> that 'genuine Bell' would be at the level it is today if it had no >> competition nipping at its heels? Do you think, for instance, that >> AT&T would even today be providing digital connections nationwide if >> it were not for Sprint and >>others? > [automobile analogy deleted] > In the early days of telecom, you could get any service you wanted, as > long as you wanted a service provided by Ma Bell. If you didn't like > it, you could do without. I have been reading the stream of complaints for quite a while. Personally, my or my clients' phone needs are not sophisticated enough to have encountered most of the difficulties or problems. (Shockingly, I have also never been slammed - did you guys get on a secret 'slam me' list ?) However, to be fair and consistent, if you are going to curse de'judge and bitch about the MFJ shouldn't you also enumerate everything that was wrong or defficient about the phone network *before* the world changed ? As far as I can see, the main 'cost' has been aggressive and sometimes borderline marketing tactics. Well, sorry, but that seems to be a side effect of competition in an open market. There are good guys and bad guys and you have to learn to tell the difference. Perhaps we should have a single breakfast cereal manufacturer and another FCC (Federal Cereal Commission), if you want to regulate and restrict every industry with questionable marketing approaches. Jeff Sicherman
IZZYAS1@mvs.oac.ucla.edu (Andy Jacobson) (02/18/91)
John Higdon <john@zygot.ati.com>writes: > But listen to the cries of doom when a COCOT rips off > someone for a few extra bucks on a long distance call. "It is all > Judge Greene's fault." Baloney! If the public does not like COCOTs, it > will not use them and they will go away. If the public is too stupid > to know the difference, then it gets what it deserves. Agreed, but John, we often aren't given much of a choice. For example when I needed to call someone from a shopping center in Vista, and found the whole place wired with Ultra-Rip-Off (TM) phones, that wanted $1.75 for a call. I had to go miles, like three, to find a real Pac*Bell phone that would charge me only $0.40 for the same call (I was going away from where I was calling). I bet that if you had a COCOT and an LEC pay phone right next to each other, 99% of passers by would choose the LEC phone. Most people have the savvy to avoid COCOTS if given a choice. The point is that we are rarely presented with that choice. The same applies to 10XXX blocking. AOS only exist because we can't (or are deceived into believing we can't) reach our prefered carrier. Andy Jacobson <izzyas1@oac.ucla.edu> or <izzyas1@UCLAMVS.bitnet>
john@zygot.ati.com (John Higdon) (02/18/91)
Andy Jacobson <IZZYAS1@mvs.oac.ucla.edu> writes: > Agreed, but John, we often aren't given much of a choice. For example > when I needed to call someone from a shopping center in Vista, and > found the whole place wired with Ultra-Rip-Off (TM) phones, that > wanted $1.75 for a call. I had to go miles, like three, to find a real > Pac*Bell phone that would charge me only $0.40 for the same call (I > was going away from where I was calling). And so, you confirm my statements about the marketplace. The fact is, you went three miles out of your way to avoid dropping any money into a device that you deemed unworthy of your business. Granted, in the short term, many will be inconvenienced, overcharged, and otherwise put upon. We Americans are always looking for the instant, quick fix. If we can keep our shirt on long enough and let the marketplace do its inevitable work, COCOTs will go away by themselves without gummit meddling or interference. And the force that causes their demise will be the most powerful in the world: economics. This is far superior to piling on layers of unenforcable regulations or some sort of "quick fix" legislation. When people go miles out of their way to find utility phones, buy and use cellular phones, or just avoid using the phones altogether, COCOTs will eventually experience the death they so well deserve. John Higdon | P. O. Box 7648 | +1 408 723 1395 john@zygot.ati.com | San Jose, CA 95150 | M o o !
peter@taronga.hackercorp.com (Peter da Silva) (02/19/91)
In article <telecom11.128.2@eecs.nwu.edu>, IZZYAS1@mvs.oac.ucla.edu (Andy Jacobson) writes: > found the whole place wired with Ultra-Rip-Off (TM) phones, that > wanted $1.75 for a call. I had to go miles, like three, to find a real > Pac*Bell phone that would charge me only $0.40 for the same call And how much did that three mile drive cost you, in time and inconvenience? Sometimes I feel like John Higdon, amazed at the trouble people will put them to to save a nickle or make a point. But then I dutifully clip coupons and comparison shop and go out of my way to find a free automatic teller. I'll make a special trip at lunch to get diskettes for $7.00 instead of $10.00 a box. Anyway (dragging my train of thought bodily back on the tracks and, to mix a metaphor, pinning it to the mat) just how much is that honest Bell coin phone worth to you? peter@taronga.uucp.ferranti.com
IZZYAS1@mvs.oac.ucla.edu (Andy Jacobson) (02/20/91)
In TELECOM Digest V11 #129, peter@taronga.uucp.ferranti.com said: >And how much did that three mile drive cost you, in time and >inconvenience? And john@zygot.ati.com (John Higdon) said: >And so, you confirm my statements about the marketplace. The fact is, >you went three miles out of your way to avoid dropping any money into >a device that you deemed unworthy of your business. Granted, in the Now wait just a minute. First, never in my post did I say I went out of the way to use a real phone. (I call COCOTs "decoy phones" to my friends with less telephonic inclinations). Although I stopped at that shopping center only to use a phone and it was absolutely on my way to go down the road a piece, anyone who was there shopping probably would have been inconvenienced to do so. (Especially as one person using the decoy phone appeared to be waiting for a ride.) I doubt anyone would chose to avoid a shopping center because of the stripe of pay phone. This is not necessarily because people are too stupid, don't care, or are happy with it, it is because it is not a deciding factor in their need to shop there in the first place. Once there though, it is quite impractical to stage a protest, or to forego an important call. Very few businesses are likely to suffer a loss of patronage due to their choice of a decoy pay phone, and in my example, the phones are not directly tied to the stores, but the mall management, which has no presence at all. Maybe COCOTs are too much a trifle to be effectively boycotted. Maybe though, use does not connote approval, but instead an effective extortion campaign. I was lucky, I, in that circumstance, could opt out. Often, I have no choice. I could give a dozen examples where I capitulated and paid not a pittance to talk to someone. I did (and do) not do so _willingly_. Andy Jacobson<izzyas1@oac.ucla.edu> or <izzyas1@UCLAMVS.bitnet>
briang@eng.sun.com (Brian Gordon) (02/20/91)
In article <telecom11.129.3@eecs.nwu.edu> peter@taronga.hackercorp.com (Peter da Silva) writes: <In article <telecom11.128.2@eecs.nwu.edu>, IZZYAS1@mvs.oac.ucla.edu <(Andy Jacobson) writes: <> found the whole place wired with Ultra-Rip-Off (TM) phones, that <> wanted $1.75 for a call. I had to go miles, like three, to find a real <> Pac*Bell phone that would charge me only $0.40 for the same call <And how much did that three mile drive cost you, in time and <inconvenience? <Sometimes I feel like John Higdon, amazed at the trouble people will <put them to to save a nickle or make a point. But then I dutifully <clip coupons and comparison shop and go out of my way to find a free <automatic teller. I'll make a special trip at lunch to get diskettes <for $7.00 instead of $10.00 a box. Well, on the phone bill we got on Friday, there were two calls to the same number, one for four minutes and the second, a half-hour later, for seven minutes, both made on an AT&T Calling Card from pay-phones by dialing 0 803 xxx yyyy. The four minute call went through a brand X carrier and cost just under $4. The seven minute call went through AT&T and cost under $2. On a half-hour call, the difference would presumably be spectacular. A problem is that it's hard to predict WHAT the difference will be! Brian G. Gordon briang@Sun.COM (if you trust exotic mailers) ...!sun!briangordon (if you route it yourself)