ceb@csli.stanford.edu (Charles Buckley) (07/29/90)
In article <10082@accuvax.nwu.edu> robertsn@iosg.enet.dec.com (Nigel Roberts 0860 578600) writes: >One thing that does seem much more difficult than I'd expected is >obtaining a U.S calling card (e.g. AT&T, Sprint, MCI). ><details on felt-covered brick wall treatment by issuers of US >phone credit cards deleted> Practically every other country in the world I've been to bills long distance calls for a fixed unit price (about a nickel) for a variable unit of time (unlimited down to a second or so), instead of the US scheme whereby a fixed unit of time (a minute) is billed at a variable price (free up to several dollars). The former, most popular scheme makes it possible: 1. to have telephones which receive pulses and count how much the call costs (so you can reimburse your host for it on the spot if appropriate), which eliminates the need for itemized monthly billing, 2. to have inexpensive pay phones which accept fixed price debit cards that are debitted for the call (according to the number of pulses received), allowing you to telephone as easily as from home, 3. to make a short, 10 second call for a low price, therefore, to a far away place, just to say "Hi, this is <x>, please call me back on pay station <y>", which eliminates the need for most collect calls, 4. to largely dispense with huge, complex, error-prone, fraud-prone billing networks which funnel call charges, yours and the last four guys who overheard your credit card number, each with hefty calling-card or operator billing surcharges which average (for me) 30% of the price of each call, back to your monthly bill, which (in Cal.) you have to pay every month by check, and can't have debitted from your bank account automatically, and 5. last but not least, to avoid the problems Mr. Roberts complains about. When was the last time any 'red-blooded American' tried to make an international call using coins? You get the automated voice saying "Deposit ten dollars and 30 cents, please, for three minutes", which leaves you just stunned, staring at a coin slot which takes nickels, dimes, and quarters. After asking at the next store for ten dollars worth of quarters (if you're lucky enough to find one around which is open) and getting your head bitten off ("We're not a bank, you know!". No kidding.), you tends to give up, and the impression of telephoning in the US as being similar to telephoning in Baghdad has just been validated. WHY, WHY, WHY is the United States still mainly dependent on a system which has so many procedural liabilities built into it??? Agreed, the telecom employees who are stuck with providing service amid these obstacles do about as good job as can be expected, but they also do a good job insulating those who employ them from just how ineptly conceived things are, which means that things remain the same, and will likely do so for a long time to come. Agreed, when telephoning from home, it is *much* cheaper in the US than most other places I know, but that doesn't legitimize resting on one's laurels and not further reducing overhead. Surely there must be better ways of generating employment than artifically maintaining a need for large numbers of clerks and phone answerers who have ample opportunity to perfect their technique at putting you on hold. Surely corporate planners and strategists would be relieved not to have to worry about taking into account a large billing apparatus in their plans. Other countries with a far smaller market and far less capital have managed to put in place better solutions. As I see it, the regulatory agencies of the US and the utilities which lead them around by the nose (until the agencies get fed up and balk) have no excuse on this one, and should take corrective measures forthwith. That is, if regulatory agencies still know how to do anything other than give utilities a symbolic hard time before finally giving in. Now is an especially good time to do it, since one sees evidence that the nation's coin station stock will be largely changed out over the next few years. The new models I've seen can read bank cards or phone company credit cards (as if anyone actually carried the latter around), but don't tell you how much the call in progress costs. You still have to pay the huge surcharge. Can't we do better than this? I wouldn't at all mind continuing to pay the surcharges, if I knew the proceeds were going to finance putting in place a more flexible system such as the one I've described, which would no longer make such surcharges necessary.
john@bovine.ati.com (John Higdon) (07/30/90)
Charles Buckley <ceb@csli.stanford.edu> writes: [a complete and informative description of the commonly used method for billing in other countries] There are two major problems with adopting this appoach without modifications. First is the pulses themselves. All that I have heard indicates that they sometimes cause problems with modems. My system transfers much data to Japan (who uses pulses) and there appears to be no problem, but I have heard stories to the contrary. Second is the lack of detailed billing. Given the potential for error in ANY billing system, how can you justify receiving a bill for "X units -- Total Y Dollars"? No detail; no way to track down errors. I doubt that US residents would be willing to lose the detail that appears on the bill. It's bad enough that Pac*Bell bills local calls in this manner, but it would be unthinkable to receive an invoice for, say $300.00 and no detail on it whatsoever. (This IS what they do in Japan; in fact the phone company just takes it out of your bank account!) How neat and simple :-(. > The former, most popular scheme makes it possible: > 1. to have telephones which receive pulses and count how much the > call costs (so you can reimburse your host for it on the spot if > appropriate), which eliminates the need for itemized monthly billing, See the above caveat about modem use. > 3. to make a short, 10 second call for a low price, therefore, to a far > away place, just to say "Hi, this is <x>, please call me back on > pay station <y>", which eliminates the need for most collect calls, You have answered your own question. The prime concern of American business is not involved with saving you money. A tradition in this country seems to be, "If you make the call from anywhere other than your own, personal phone, it will cost you more money." > 4. to largely dispense with huge, complex, error-prone, fraud-prone > billing networks which funnel call charges, I fear that with non-detailed billing you might simply have the illusion that you had dispensed with "huge, complex, error-prone, fraud-prone billing networks" since you would have no way of knowing if this was indeed the case. With no billing info, how would you know? I agree that simplified (and cheaper) coin service would be a real plus. The system of "debit cards" for payphones in other countries is quite attractive. > Now is an especially good time to do it, since one sees evidence that > the nation's coin station stock will be largely changed out over the > next few years. The new models I've seen can read bank cards or phone > company credit cards (as if anyone actually carried the latter > around), but don't tell you how much the call in progress costs. You > still have to pay the huge surcharge. Devil's advocate time. Phones that read credit cards, handle alternate billing, etc., cost real money. The surcharge is what pays for this. If you don't use that form of billing, why should you pay? If you do, who should pick up the cost if it isn't you via the surcharge? Alternate bill DOES cost more. The only alternative to collecting that cost from the immediate user is to spread it over all users. Is that fair? > Can't we do better than this? I wouldn't at all mind continuing to > pay the surcharges, if I knew the proceeds were going to finance > putting in place a more flexible system such as the one I've > described, which would no longer make such surcharges necessary. Agreed. But do you really want our "regulators" to come up with the new plans? Can you name a situation when this hasn't resulted in some sort of debacle? Our billing system could use many improvements, but from past experience, I would suggest great caution. It really does matter who makes the changes and how they are made. There is a bit of a conflict here. Any system that dispenses with call detail is unacceptable. Any system that retains detail and offers alternative billing arrangements will cost more to record calls billed in that manner. You can't get something for nothing. John Higdon | P. O. Box 7648 | +1 408 723 1395 john@bovine.ati.com | San Jose, CA 95150 | M o o !
ken@sharkey.cc.umich.edu (Ken Jongsma) (07/30/90)
I just had to respond to this post, I'm sure there will be many others. While the poster makes some valid points, I think overall, the US plan is much easier to understand *and verify.* (I've used both the meter and the US (really North American) systems.) It's much easier to understand that a call costs x cents a minute and see it show up that way on your bill. I believe the vast majority of long distance calls are billed to a credit card these days, or at least a third number. Having a meter based system just for coin calls when home and businesses receive time based calls would not make a lot of sense either. Ken Jongsma ken@wybbs.mi.org Smiths Industries ken%wybbs@sharkey.umich.edu Grand Rapids, Michigan ..sharkey.cc.umich.edu!wybbs!ken
david@cs.uow.edu.au (David E A Wilson) (07/30/90)
john@bovine.ati.com (John Higdon) writes: [the > indented bits] >Charles Buckley <ceb@csli.stanford.edu> writes:[the >> indented bits] >First is the pulses themselves. All that I have heard indicates that >they sometimes cause problems with modems. My system transfers much >data to Japan (who uses pulses) and there appears to be no problem, >but I have heard stories to the contrary. Australia uses the pulse counting method as well - I haven't experienced any problems with my modems. I understand that they are only present on a regular phone line if you pay Telecom to install a counter at your end of the line (which cannot be used to argue your bill). >Second is the lack of detailed billing. Given the potential for error >in ANY billing system, how can you justify receiving a bill for "X >units -- Total Y Dollars"? No detail; no way to track down errors. I >doubt that US residents would be willing to lose the detail that >appears on the bill. We never had detailed billing (what you never had, you don't miss?). We are now just starting to get it on international calls (free) and trunk calls (if you pay extra - but when exchanges are upgraded it will become free). You do normally get the international calls totalled separately even with older exchanges. >> 3. to make a short, 10 second call for a low price, therefore, to a far >> away place, just to say "Hi, this is <x>, please call me back on >> pay station <y>", which eliminates the need for most collect calls, We have this type of payphone - Sydney to Perth ( >745 km) at the most expensive time of day will cost you 30c for each 22 seconds. David Wilson david@wraith.cs.uow.edu.au
mk59200@uikku.tut.fi (Kolkka Markku Olavi) (07/30/90)
In article <10218@accuvax.nwu.edu>, john@bovine.ati.com (John Higdon) writes: |> There are two major problems with adopting this appoach without |> modifications. |> First is the pulses themselves. All that I have heard indicates that |> they sometimes cause problems with modems. The billing pulses aren't normally transmitted to your phone, they are part of the CO signalling. If you want the device that shows the price of each call, the pulses are connected to your line, but this obviously isn't a good idea with a line used for a modem. |> Second is the lack of detailed billing. Given the potential for error |> in ANY billing system, how can you justify receiving a bill for "X |> units -- Total Y Dollars"? No detail; no way to track down errors. This isn't a problem with modern equipment, if you want more detail, just ask for it. In the old electromechanical switches the pulses were counted with a simple odometer-style counter, which didn't give any details, but the current generation of digital switches accumulate the billing information digitally and can gather as much details as the customer wants. Markku Kolkka mk59200@tut.fi
johnl@esegue.segue.boston.ma.us (John R. Levine) (07/31/90)
In article <61563@bu.edu.bu.edu> is written: >Practically every other country in the world I've been to bills long >distance calls for a fixed unit price (about a nickel) for a variable >unit of time (unlimited down to a second or so), instead of the US >scheme whereby a fixed unit of time (a minute) is billed at a variable >price (free up to several dollars). >The former, most popular scheme makes it possible: > [to do all sorts of swell stuff] On the other hand, the US approach lets the telcos avoid having to feed the entire tarriff structure into every end office, and to have quantity discounts, extended area flat rate plans, and all sorts of other stuff that would be impractical with an impulse-based scheme. My long-distance carrier doesn't know the real cost for each call until the end of the month when they compute the quantity discount based on the total call volume from all seven of the lines (in four separate locations in three states) on my home phone bill. There's no doubt, sent-paid long distance calls from a pay phone are sort of an orphan, and are, as far as I can tell, the last major area of US telephony in which there is no competition at all -- intra-LATA calls are handled by the local telco, inter-LATA calls by AT&T, and that's that. But I suspect that, given the relatively small fraction of calls that are made from pay phones, the US scheme is not a bad idea. I also note that a major disadvantage of impulse systems is that until recently, there has been no way whatsoever to get an itemized bill, and if you believe that the impulse counter on your line is overcharging you, no way to challenge the phone company's bill. Does anyone have any actual data on the number of calls made from payphones, and how many of them are local, how many sent-paid toll calls, and how many charged elsewhere, e.g. calling card or collect? Regards, John Levine, johnl@esegue.segue.boston.ma.us, {spdcc|ima|lotus}!esegue!johnl
ndallen@contact.uucp (Nigel Allen) (08/01/90)
Regular readers of comp.dcom.telecom may remember that Canadian Telex service is billed by pulses, rather than by detailed billing. I suspect the same is true for Western Union's domestic Telex service in the U.S. In the absence of detailed billing, the Telex operator at Dalhousie University's Kellogg Health Sciences Library used a stop-watch to time calls so that end-users could be charged for their outgoing Telex messages. (This was thirteen years ago, when I was a student at Dalhousie and worked on the student newspaper there, _The Dalhousie Gazette_. We used Telex to send and receive news to and from Canadian University Press, the national organization of Canadian English-language student newspapers, which had its own Telex machine in Ottawa. Of course, it helped that the library's Telex operator was our editor's cousin.) Most news moved by mail back then; Telex was only for particularly urgent material.