0004133373@mcimail.com (Donald E. Kimberlin) (09/17/90)
Fischer writes <in Digest v10, Iss 649>: > ... he was incredibly hostile! He said every time he called, >"some fax machine or something" answered the line. Now he's >really hostile! "You are using a standard dial tone line, what you >get is what you get ... If you want a data line, pay for it. You >people abuse the system, but it's gonna change..." Sounds like you met one of the remaining "telco gents of the Olde School," Bill. One of those types who really cares FAR less for making the customer happy than pushing his weight around. (Of course, he's probably a pretty responsible guy with a family who has been made that way by HIS bosses, but that's beside the point. I just wanted to make the point that he is a type, and not all that unusual.) His _modus_operandi_ runs along a classic line. The problem is that line contains a lie that he uses to avoid doing his job, and if he can get you to swallow it, not only will he get rid of the problem of having to do some work, he'll even get you to pay extra to get the work done. (WHEN are Americans EVER going to learn about these petty flim-flams they get subjected to daily?) Fortunately, you clung to some reason he could not deny, so you were able to make him do his job. Lo and behold: A plain old POTS line good enough to talk on is good enough for your modem. Amazing fact! (You rotten abuser of the "telephone network, you!) >What is this data line he referred to, how much does it cost and is >it really necessary to get one for modem use? Is there any way Bell >can determine if a line is used exclusively for data? The flim-flam here is one that local Telcos have even gotten the imprimateur of regulatory approval for; more's the pity. I don't know which one started it, but in their classic style of ripping the people state by state, keeping the general public in the dark that it's going nationwide, they file tariffs to "add" some "special conditioning" or "special treatment" to your old POTS line for a price that ranges from about $2.50 to $8.00 a month, depending on which Telco is your local rip-off agent. Oh, you'd pay the usual $50 or so worth of service order and "installation" charges, too. The real rip-off behind it is that what you get is a guarantee that the noise level, frequency response and envelope delay of the piece of cable from your premises to the Telco exchange meets the very same limits it is supposed to meet before they EVER use that cable for POTS service! That's right: Pay them extra to get them to meet their own limits for every dial-up phone line they ever put in! How's that, Telecomm sports fans? (For those into jargon, the numeric limits are the SAME as those for "acceptance testing" new subscriber cable; the tests they were supposed to do when they put the cable into service.) You proved to yourself you don't need that extra cost to make a modem work, and the tariff they sell it under has NOTHING to do with the volume of traffic or the nature of your messages. It merely guarantees they will do the job they are supposed to do. Why does your modem work OK? Simply because those self-same numeric limits they are supposed to meet for a POTS line are what the Telco industry tells modem makers their lines ALWAYS meet ... whether you paid extra or not. So, no you don't need it, unless you cave into letting them snow you into buying something they should have done in the base price; something they tell the modem makers (and indeed the PUC) they do for EVERY line. There are a number of ways they MIGHT find you use it exclusively for data, but all involve making the effort to "snoop" about what you are doing ... guessing from the length of your calls or investigating to find the number you dial is a computer; actual eavesdropping at length to hear nothing but tones every call you make, or calling the number themselves as did the cretin Illinois Bell sent to you. But, the BIG point is, they can't REQUIRE you to buy it. You can, as you did, stand on some rights to get them to do what they are always supposed to do and assume for yourself the responsibility that your modem will then work ... which it was in fact designed at their advice to do. >The whole deal kinda smells bad to me. You're absolutely right. It stinks to high heaven, and I hope you have the time and gumption to sit down and write a complaint letter in detail to the Illinois PUC, detailing not only the actions of the employee, but also the fact that you have an FCC-registered device that has been certified to operate properly on an ORDINARY line (RTFM and quote its applicable passages, which it is certain to have), and tell the PUC that they should be investigating WHY Illinois Bell charges extra for something they should be maintaining for ALL lines. Big Brother is really too slothful to mark your record card, but you can bet such a letter will get you about a hundred phone calls from all sorts of insects in the woodwork who will want to be your friend from now on, giving you their secret phone number and telling you to please call them directly for ANY future trouble you have. Your investment at this point to let them know you are a tough cookie will lead to a long period of excellent telephone service. You'll be a "special person" to all of them!
meier@uunet.uu.net (Rolf Meier) (09/18/90)
>Sounds like you met one of the remaining "telco gents of the Olde >School," Bill. One of those types who really cares FAR less for making >the customer happy than pushing his weight around. (Of course, he's >probably a pretty responsible guy with a family who has been made that >way by HIS bosses, but that's beside the point. I just wanted to make >the point that he is a type, and not all that unusual.) His >_modus_operandi_ runs along a classic line. >The problem is that line contains a lie that he uses to avoid doing >about these petty flim-flams they get subjected to daily?) >(You rotten abuser of the "telephone network, you!) Look, the real reason the telephone companies don't like you using a "voice" line for "data" is the different traffic characteristics. Why do you think a data line is a ripoff? A typical data call lasts a lot longer than voice calls. This means that the Telco has to supply more call paths in order to maintain the same grade of service. This costs them money. It is only fair that the users of data lines pay the extra. You can argue that "but MY data calls are ALWAYS short, and I talk for HOURS"; unfortunately the rates are not figured like that right now. In the future, when you will be paying for bandwidth x connect time, you may be satisfied that the rates are "fair". Rolf Meier Mitel Corporation
john@bovine.ati.com (John Higdon) (09/20/90)
On Sep 19 at 21:40, Rolf Meier <mitel!spock!meier@uunet.uu.net> writes: > Look, the real reason the telephone companies don't like you using a > "voice" line for "data" is the different traffic characteristics. Before we go around with this again, let me share with you a comment by a "deep throat" within Pac*Bell. The reason telcos want to charge you extra for "data" dialups is "revenue enhancement" -- no more, no less. It has nothing to do with traffic patterns (business usage is metered and charged anyway, and residential use occurs off-peak) or bandwidth considerations. It is just another in a long line of "extras" that the telco has managed to convince the PUC it has justification for grabbing more. Like voice usage, data usage is all over the map in terms of network usage. So please, let's not go making up a lot of garbage justifications for extra charges for lines used for data. > Why do you think a data line is a ripoff? A typical data call lasts a > lot longer than voice calls. This means that the Telco has to supply > more call paths in order to maintain the same grade of service. This > costs them money. It is only fair that the users of data lines pay > the extra. Local calls are charged for and timed. Isn't one charge enough? Or is data something "magic" that costs telco extra? What costs the telco more: a twenty-minute news delivery from my news feed, or a two-hour converstation by my neighbor's teen-aged daughter? See? Forget the authoritative declaration from a Pac*Bell "informant" -- the logic of the position fails as well. John Higdon | P. O. Box 7648 | +1 408 723 1395 john@bovine.ati.com | San Jose, CA 95150 | M o o !
jimb@silvlis.com (Jim Budler) (09/21/90)
In article <12321@accuvax.nwu.edu> Rolf Meier <mitel!healey!meier@ uunet.uu.net> writes: >Look, the real reason the telephone companies don't like you using a >"voice" line for "data" is the different traffic characteristics. >Why do you think a data line is a ripoff? A typical data call lasts a >lot longer than voice calls. This means that the Telco has to supply >more call paths in order to maintain the same grade of service. This >costs them money. It is only fair that the users of data lines pay >the extra. Uh, this has been argued many, many times. But I have to ask you again why phone companies offer discounts for teen lines, and ask premiums for data lines? Teen calls last longer than typical adult voice calls. I admit they are comparable to interactive data calls. Teen calls last longer than the typical data call I see at work. During the average hour I have four one minute data calls, and one five minute data call. I spent two hours on the phone to a company employee requiring technical assistance from the field. This was a voice call, and it happened to be at home. Many of our voice calls are long, really long. Trying to type on a keyboard 12,000 miles away, or read a crash traceback over the phone can take a long time. Obligatory Humorous Illustrative Example: Person supporting by phone says: "Type cd space slash U S R slash L I B" Three hours later they determine the person on the other end typed: cdspaceslashusrslashlib Back to the subject. I disagree that data calls are by definition longer than voice calls. In fact I believe that data calls are on average *shorter* than voice calls. Why? As I mentioned, I average four one-minute calls per hour, one five-minute call per hour. These are the automated mail and news exchange calls. They are data calls. I average ten interactive (i.e. people) dialins per day. Most are about twenty-minutes, some are a couple hours. On average it breaks down to something like 8x20-minutes, 1x1-hour, 1x3-hour. Let's figure this out: 4 calls per hour * 1 minute * 24 hour = 96 minutes per day 1 calls per hour * 5 minutes * 24 hour = 120 minutes per day 8 calls per day * 20 minutes = 160 minutes per day 1 call per day * 180 minutes = 180 minutes per day 96 times + 24 times + 8 times + 1 time 556 minutes 556 minutes / 129 calls = 4.31 minutes per call Are you really going to try to say that the average voice call is less than this? This is all over voice grade lines. Why do you insist I pay for a data grade line because usage exceeds voice usage? I don't have comparable numbers for our voice usage. But I do believe that excluding only two catagories, wrong numbers and "He's not in, do you want to leave a message", where they don't leave a message, our average voice phone call exceeds five minutes. 'nuff said. I disagree with your argument. Jim Budler jimb@silvlis.com +1.408.991.6115 Silvar-Lisco, Inc. 703 E. Evelyn Ave. Sunnyvale, Ca. 94086
Dave Levenson <dave@westmark.westmark.com> (09/22/90)
In article <12375@accuvax.nwu.edu>, john@bovine.ati.com (John Higdon) writes: > Local calls are charged for and timed. Isn't one charge enough? Or is > data something "magic" that costs telco extra? What costs the telco > more: a twenty-minute news delivery from my news feed, or a two-hour > converstation by my neighbor's teen-aged daughter? See? Forget the > authoritative declaration from a Pac*Bell "informant" -- the logic of > the position fails as well. John is quite correct. Using today's technology, and using timed billing, data calls cost the telco what voice calls do, and they produce the same revenue that voice calls do. Extra charges for data calling are not justified. This may not always be true, however. Future trends go toward allocating only the bandwidth required to every connection. Rather than assign 64kbit/second of bandwidth to every conversation, whether or not it needs it, the future network will only assign the bandwidth actually required by the message channel being carried. Speech compression and coding technology has advanced a long way since the first digital telephony standards were written. An example of this trend is the use, in the coming digital cellular telephony networks, of speech carried at 8 or 16 kbit/second with sophisticated digital signal processing being used to remove virtually all redundancy from the channel. It's like running batched netnews feeds through compress(1). These channels don't work with wideband data. The amound of information is greater, and the amount of compression that can be realized is less. The minimum required bandwidth is greater. The cost is higher. At some point, we should expect the price to be higher. There is technology under development that will characterize individual calls as voice or data. Data calls will be further characterized by the amount of compression possible (i.e. the minimum required bandwidth). I predict that at some point, we'll not only find timed local billing, but bandwidth-dependent timed billing. It will probably work out that the cost of sending 100,000 bytes of data will be essentially the same, whether we use 1200 bps modems, 9600 bps modems, or ISDN digital channels without modems. The high-speed links will take less time, but the price per minute will be higher, to reflect the increased bandwidth requirements. What I don't know is how long it will be before such things become common. I do know that the call-characterization technology is under development for the RBOCs today. Dave Levenson Internet: dave@westmark.com Westmark, Inc. UUCP: {uunet | rutgers | att}!westmark!dave Warren, NJ, USA AT&T Mail: !westmark!dave Voice: 908 647 0900 Fax: 908 647 6857
peter@ficc.ferranti.com (Peter da Silva) (09/24/90)
In article <12433@accuvax.nwu.edu> dave@westmark.westmark.com (Dave Levenson) writes: > It will probably work out that the cost of sending 100,000 bytes of data > will be essentially the same, whether we use 1200 bps modems, 9600 bps > modems, or ISDN digital channels without modems. I doubt it. As soon as modems come into the picture the *real* bandwidth costs go way up. If ISDN isn't way cheaper than modems it'll be purely for political reasons. Peter da Silva. +1 713 274 5180. peter@ferranti.com