Bill Huttig <la063249@zach.fit.edu> (08/08/90)
I received my VISAPhone account from MCI yesterday. It came with several flyers. The card is a thin hard paper/plastic with a hologram on the front (very neat design ... A world with a phone receiver cord going counterclock wise around it and athe reciver in front... the bottom 1/5 of the card has the VISAPhone on the left and MCI logo on the right) on the back are the dialing procedures.. VISAPhone has different Access number (1-800-444-9595 they should have used something ending in VISA)you dial the number and 0 +A/c number at tone you dial you visa card + 4 digit pin aand press #. Customer service is at 1-800-866-0099. Calls within the US are charged at $.70 + .18/min day or .70 + .13/min evenings. or .70 + .10/min nights/weekends. There was a flyer about there internation calling plans... which stated that they would wave the first 3 moths of service charge ($3/mo).. I called up regular MCI customer service to see if I could have it added to my regular MCI account with the fee waived the rep. said that it was for new customers but if I asked she could give me the $9 credit. I have accounts with several long distence companies which can prove handy at times ... A while back Southern Bell had a cable cut and they only carrier that worked was ATC(MicroTel at the time) and MCI 800 calls since MCI rents fiber from ATC in Florida. I could not even reach a operator of any kind. Bill
"Donald E. Kimberlin" <0004133373@mcimail.com> (08/08/90)
My original post had said I would summarize results of this
message in about a week. However, it seems there are participants of
this forum whose is more inflammatory rhetoric than study of
telecommunications and its impact on society.
The result so far has been (thankfully) only a few direct
messages and the post referred to here that are way off the beam of
what the message was about.
That beam was to see if in fact Americans would rise to an
issue for democratic debate by electronic means, no matter whether
or not you agree with the debate or issue.
Regrettably, the replies have instead been from people who
indicate by their very comment that they would NOT aid the spread of
debate. In doing so, these individuals indicate themselves to be
guilty of their own form of the same narrowmindedness they so loudly
protest in this forum, some of them daily.
To straighten out some of the trivialities that have now
been published and correct some of the outright errors:
1.) Mr. da Silva asks:
>So who do you call to express support for Roseanne Barr?
Response: I don't know who takes telephone calls, but you are free to
fax Mr. McGrover your opinion, pro or con. He thinks the majority is
con, but does accept opposing viewpoints ... even at his own expense.
Are you that open-minded?
2.) Mr.da Silva states:
>I note that this article was posted by an MCI Mail employee
Response: I suggest you take a course in Critical Reading. The post
clearly states:
>Org: Telecommunications Network Architects, Safety Harbor, FL
..For the record, TNA has NO affiliation with MCI. In fact, TNA is
so independent of MCI it scares MCI people sometimes. If, however,
Mr. da Silva has some information that MCI will buy me out for the
right price, I would be pleased to entertain an offer.
3.) Mr. da Silva states:
>... MCI is likely to be one of the companies benefiting from this
>campaign, both from MCI Mail FAX and MCI long distance service)
Response: Absolutely wrong and utterly misleading! The original
message clearly states:
>...he fully expects and understands he's liable to run up a huge
AT&T Readyline WATS bill...
I want to make it crystal clear that MCI in no way has any
interest nor even the means to make a penny from what is being done.
And to those on this forum who HAVE responded and reacted in
the sense of opening electronic democracy ... McGrover has told me that
some of you did, with both West Coast talk radio shows and a reader
from a Massachusetts newspaper, plus others, congratulations on
reading the post properly and not making themselves judges of
limitations on the First Amendment rights of people they don't agree
with.
[For latecomers, the campaign is to FAX (no voice accepted)
messages about Roseanne Barr's performance of the national anthem to
800-468-0344.]peter da silva <peter@ficc.ferranti.com> (08/09/90)
I apologise for confusing Donald E. Kimberlin with an MCI Mail employee. I do think that a "democratic" debate that involves one-way messages via an expensive piece of equipment (a FAX) fails a little in the "democracy" department. Since it's one-way, it fails in the "debate" department as well. As a Usenet user, I'm part of a far more democratic (much smaller capital investment required), far more widespread (what, a million users?), and for more responsive forum (two-way beats one-way any day) than any FAX poll. > 1.) Mr. da Silva asks: > >So who do you call to express support for Roseanne Barr? > Response: I don't know who takes telephone calls, but you are free to > fax Mr. McGrover your opinion, pro or con. Not without paying MCI for the privilege. I don't own a FAX... in fact I don't even like the *idea* of FAX. It's an expensive, inefficient, and clumsy *technological* solution to the *political* problems of electronic mail. > He thinks the majority is > con, but does accept opposing viewpoints ... even at his own expense. Your message gave no indication that Mr. McGrover was at all interested in anything but flames. > Are you that open-minded? Having had opposing viewpoints shoved down my throat by the media for the past umpteen days, if I was any more open minded I'd be mainlining Cloraseptic by now. > I want to make it crystal clear that MCI in no way has any > interest nor even the means to make a penny from what is being done. You know any other Email-FAX gateways I might use? They get enough of my money on letters to Australia. > And to those on this forum who HAVE responded and reacted in > the sense of opening electronic democracy... *Opening* electronic democracy? Maybe to the folks with expensive toys or the ability to mooch off the office FAX machine. 900-number polls seem more democratic to me. Peter da Silva. `-_-' +1 713 274 5180. 'U` <peter@ficc.ferranti.com>
Jim Budler <jimb@silvlis.com> (08/13/90)
In article <10662@accuvax.nwu.edu> peter@ficc.ferranti.com (Peter da Silva) writes: >I don't even like the *idea* of FAX. It's an expensive, inefficient, >and clumsy *technological* solution to the *political* problems of >electronic mail. Someday, I hope as you, that email will be universal. But if you'd been in Taiwan at the end of the day, faced with your choice of staying up 'till midnight to make a phone call, and sending a FAX home, you'd realize the value of FAX in today's world. In fact, even if it had been midnight and I knew people were in the plant, I would have sent the FAX, given they would have put me on hold, created a conference call and gathered everyone concerned (can you say 10 minutes or more while my ear burns and my sleep is delayed?). Email isn't there yet. >You know any other Email-FAX gateways I might use? They get enough of >my money on letters to Australia. Uhh, yes. ATTmail, Compuserve, maybe GEnie and Delphi. Please note that I have not the slightest idea if any of these are cheaper, just answering your question. Fax modems are dropping to lower prices than I paid for my first 1200 baud modem, maybe it's time to do a study of how much you pay regularly for that email to FAX translation service and buy your own Faxmodem and do it yourself? >> And to those on this forum who HAVE responded and reacted in >> the sense of opening electronic democracy... >*Opening* electronic democracy? Maybe to the folks with expensive toys >or the ability to mooch off the office FAX machine. 900-number polls >seem more democratic to me. Democratic??? I don't think this survey is democratic, I think it's *demographic*. It is going to be presented as upper-middle-class and above results based upon the fact that it contains only respondents with access to a FAX machine. In addition, I doubt that it qualifies as any sort of scientific survey, as it will be biased towards those with enough energy to make a statement, which in this case is those upset by her performance. It's unlikely there will be a groundswell of people *actively* supporting her. Much as I disliked her performance, and think it was in terrible taste, I think the issue is trivial, and of no major importance. Jim Budler jimb@silvlis.com +1.408.991.6061 Silvar-Lisco, Inc. 703 E. Evelyn Ave. Sunnyvale, Ca. 94086