boerner@emx.utexas.edu> (07/13/90)
I have two questions regarding local phone operation and one regarding long distances rates which I am curious about and about which I am hoping someone can enlighten me. First, does anyone have a clue why Southwestern Bell here in Austin, TX wants $60.00 to hookup a phone? I don't mean hookup as in sending someone to pull some wire (I think that's $60.00/hour), I mean, $60.00 so that I can call, request service, am told it'll be available after such-and-such hour on such-and-such day, and that's that. I asked a cust. service rep. about it once and she wasn't able to give me a very good explanation. I seem to recall that it involved a couple of data key operators and maybe one or two quality assurance folks. Also, when I moved out of a co-op two years ago, I asked if I could keep the same number which I had been using. I was told, yes, if I wanted to pay to have them pull a wire from the 478 exchange to the 458 exchange (my old number was 478-3813, my current is 458-1770) *and* I would have to pay extra monthly. What I am wondering is, how does the local service work? Is a city really broken into sections, where moving a number between them requires a hardware change? About the long distance pricing: I called MCI and inquired about their PrimeTime Texas and PrimeTime plans. These are plans where you agree to purchase a minimum of 1hr/month of intrastate and interstate long distance service respectively. Maybe someone can explain the odd rates summarized below (what is odd (to me) is that intrastate is *more* expensive than interstate). PrimeTime Texas (intrastate) PrimeTime (interstate) (rounded down to nearest cent) $0.37/minute (8am - 5pm) $0.18/minute (8am - 5pm) $0.18/minute (5pm - 8am) $0.13/minute (5pm- 11pm) $0.11/minute (11pm - 8am) I thought is kinda bizarre that I can call California during business hours for *less* than calling my brother in Dallas after 5pm. Any ideas? Many thanks, Brendan B. Boerner Phone: 512/471-3241 Microcomputer Technologies The University of Texas @ Austin Internet: boerner@emx.utexas.edu UUCP: ...!cs.utexas.edu!ut-emx!boerner BITNET: CCGB001@UTXVM.BITNET AppleLink: boerner@emx.utexas.edu@DASNET#
PCI@cup.portal.com (07/15/90)
Brendan B. Boerner (boerner@emx.utexas.edu) asks the following often asked questions: >First, does anyone have a clue why Southwestern Bell here in Austin, >TX wants $60.00 to hookup a phone? I don't mean hookup as in sending >someone to pull some wire (I think that's $60.00/hour), I mean, >$60.00 so that I can call, request service, am told it'll be available >after such-and-such hour on such-and-such day, and that's that. I >asked a cust. service rep. about it once and she wasn't able to give >me a very good explanation. I seem to recall that it involved a >couple of data key operators and maybe one or two quality assurance >folks. The cost of a phone installation is based on the AVERAGE cost to install a phone in your rate region. This is approved by your state PUC. Sometimes state PUC's allow a discount if a line is already in. Sometimes if you accept a working line of a previous resident it is much lower then a new connection. Some PUC's allow extra charges for remote installs. There are great inconsistencies in rates between different service areas ... even more variance between states. It depends on what each company can get approved by the respective PUC. Some state PUC's are VERY consumer sensitive ... some PUC's act like a department of the telephone companies they are supposed to regulate! Back to the $60 installation. IF they would charge the same $60 for an all day install to another resident in your service area (as I believe they would) it is not really out of line. >Also, when I moved out of a co-op two years ago, I asked if I could >keep the same number which I had been using. I was told, yes, if I >wanted to pay to have them pull a wire from the 478 exchange to the >458 exchange (my old number was 478-3813, my current is 458-1770) >*and* I would have to pay extra monthly. What I am wondering is, how >does the local service work? Is a city really broken into sections, >where moving a number between them requires a hardware change? You are asking for a Foreign Exchange (FX) service. Each CO has it's assigned prefixes. Your new phone will really be, for rate purposes and calling purposes, in you old calling area. A new wire will not be installed but you will utilize a trunk on a full period basis. This trunk will go between the CO's in your city (yes, cities are broken into sections or areas based upon servicing CO.) In Hawaii, the cost for an Inter Office Trunk is over $8/mile within the same island and slightly over $2/mile if between CO's on separate islands (don't try to see a consistency, remember I said it is what the phone company can get approved). In addition you must pay for the phone service at the originating CO and a charge for FX service. All of these charges are monthly. If having your old telephone number is important (businesses may find it very important), I usually recommend that FX service be compared to Remote Call Forwarding (RCF). This would mean your old telephone number would be set to forward calls to your new telephone number. It is a switch function without a local line or instrument (obviously an inbound calling only service). This service costs about 1/2 of the cost of a business line. You would have to pay toll charges if applicable between the old number and new number. Your callers will be charged for only cost to the old number. >About the long distance pricing: I called MCI and inquired about their >PrimeTime Texas and PrimeTime plans. These are plans where you agree >to purchase a minimum of 1hr/month of intrastate and interstate long >distance service respectively. Maybe someone can explain the odd >rates summarized below (what is odd (to me) is that intrastate is >*more* expensive than interstate). Back to the regulatory bodies! PUC's regulate Intrastate service and FCC regulates Interstate service. The regulations may not always apply to the Inter Exchange Carrier. Sometimes IEC's are unregulated because they are nondominant carriers. The Local Exchange Carrier is almost (if not) always regulated on rates in can charge IEC's by the FCC and PUC (depending whether it is Intrastate or Interstate service). In my work (as a carrier) I have seen as much as a 200% to 300% difference in switch access charges for Feature Group D access between Interstate and Intrastate service on the same switch! Then to make it more interesting, some states are blessed with a monopoly of the LEC for Intralata service (to all those who complain about GTE as an LEC, how would you like to deal with them on ANY service within a state!) I hope this has helped answer your questions. I am at home and do not have my Tariffs with me. Just for Hawaii, between PUC tariffs, GTE FCC tariffs, FCC Regulations, etc I use up 2 bookshelves. I might add that it is NOT uncommon for customer service representatives not to understand the tariffs applicable to the services they support. I often get an off-the-wall answer that is defended by "that is our tariff". I then get great joy in asking "I must have missed that rule, could you please FAX me the page it is on". The silence on the other end followed by the stammering shows the great discomfort of being caught. I have yet to get the 1st FAX, I have 100% success in eventually getting what I asked for and I have never had the same line pulled twice by the same representative. (I accept the reasonable answer of "I am not sure how to do this" or "price this" ... "let me check it out and get in touch with you". But they had better get back to me or I will call them and the supervisor. Robert Kelley Internet: PCI@CUP.PORTAL.COM PCI Communications Inc. EasyLink: 62958477 (808) 599-4724 OnTyme: INTL.PCI/KELLEY FAX (808) 733-2011 SprintMail: RFKELLEY SnailMail: 1103 9th Ave, Suite 245, Honolulu HI, 96816
0004133373@mcimail.com (Donald E. Kimberlin) (07/15/90)
..In article (Digest v10,iss479) Brendan writes: >I have two questions regarding local phone operation and one regarding >long distances rates which I am curious... >First, does anyone have a clue why Southwestern Bell here in Austin, TX wants $60.00 to hookup a phone? Yep, it's a charge on the higher fringe of what Telcos nationwide tend to get for a once-manual, now-automated operation. It even has components, like (let's say) $25 for "writing the service order," and $15 for "wiring on the distributing frame," and $5 for "updating the directory entry," and so on. These prices, once established as a means to hold off rate increases by creating the Telco equivalent of government "user fees" and "impact fees," have never been reviewed by PUCs to see if they are still valid. And we all know who is _not_ about to ask for a review, don't we? >Also... was told ... if I wanted to pay to have them pull a wire from >the 478 exchange to the 458 exchange ... *and* I would have to pay >extra monthly. ... how does the local service work? Is a city really >broken into sections, where moving a number between them requires a >hardware change? Well, I sure hope the lady didn't say "pull a wire" across the city. That would constitute naievete in extremis! What she described was a "foreign central office" (within a city; "foreign exchange" between two cities) line. The transmission channels already exist; Telcos will, if you wish, rent you a channel to that other exchange to get your dial tone from there. You pay the "service order charges" (usually higher for a "special service" and a monthly rental for the extension transmission channel ... and there's usually cute components in the monthly charge for the "special equipment" they "need" to make a longer-than-normal loop operate. Now, here's the dirty truth: The sort of "special equipment" that's used is the same as is used for many other classes of "phone lines," further, it often is not needed. The most extreme case I know of is the boundary between Boca Raton, FL and Deerfield Beach, FL. There, the two "exchanges" are in the SAME Southern Bell building, and an "FX line" consists of ONE jumper wire on the distributing frame. BUT, the two "exchanges" are several miles apart on the long-standing "official description" of thw two areas. No matter, an FX there costs (I recall) about $65 a month ... for 100 feet of wire! What you pay for a phone line has at best a VERY small resemblance to what it costs to put any given line in. The Telco mushes all the costs together into a heap called the "rate base" and then apportions out what it thinks you should pay for each thing. It's a principle proudly euphemized in Telco-Speak as "Value of Service Pricing," spoken of in reverent tones, because Telcos are sure God gave them that right. And, they'll fight you into the ground to preserve it. One study a decade ago found that press, hospitals, police, broadcasters, residences and business all paid difference prices for identical wires in the SAME cable! The real kicker: press paid the lowest price. The politics behind it are obvious. Don't let anyone ever tell you the "phone company" isn't one of the most political animals in town. >About the long distance pricing ... (describes MCI rate structure) > ... I thought is kinda bizarre that I can call California during >business hours for *less* than calling my brother in Dallas after >5pm. Any ideas? No "ideas" needed. It's another of the nationwide unrealities of telephone company rate-making. State by state, the regulators long ago found they could look good and keep the Telco's much-watched price for a local line down by letting INTRAstate short-haul LD charges rise. It goes back to a point in time when none of us as individuals hauled off and dialed the phone for just any old thing. Since we all became "telephone junkies," the usage has soared, but the protected rate for the local telco do haul LD in-state remains. Others, like MCI, are _required_ to not undercut the "local" Telco on in-state rates. Yet, you see what the true costs must be like in the FCC-mandated (almost) free market of INTERstate rates. That's the answer, pure and simple: Another very visible proof that the price you pay for regulated phone services has little connection to the cost of the product. The sooner America wakes up and starts to let it be known it understands the regulatory "shell game" and ends the silly form of "regulation" that exists today, the sooner prices will begin to truly reflect costs. The Federal government would like to permit local "dial tone" competition immediately (and several technologies exist to do so ... right now), but the local Telco lobby is still shouting that one down. Oh, you have an example right in Texas: ARCO Oil moved its offices to Richardson, on the fringe of Dallas 6-8 years ago. Fed up with GTE "dial tone," ARCO put in a private microwave and imported SW Bell dial tone to their building in Richardson. WOW! Did the Telco feathers ruffle! GTE got their "brothers in the cloth," SWBT to shut off the dial tone. Both got the Texas PUC to say on paper they had done the right thing. ARCO dragged the FCC in, saying the dial tone was only _part_ of INTERstate business, and got an FCC order to turn it back on. SWBT went to the Federal courts, and only about four months ago lost on the final level of appeal short of the Supreme Court. Doubtful you'll ever get this news in your SWBT bill insert, but you _can_ put in your _own_ FX if you want ..and for larger businesses, the technology is not that expensive these days. If you want to do it at UT, I know a guy in Austin who can guide you!)
bakerj%mcdphx.UUCP@ncar.ucar.edu (Jon Baker) (07/17/90)
Brendan, The first question regards the exhorbitant 'hook-up' fee. Although establishing service may involve only a few data-entry operators, the cost to lay wire to your residence is factored in there also. Even if it's an existing residence, they need to average the cost out over all new customers to avoid socking new home owners with a multi-hundred $ bill. Of course, there's an easier explanation - you WILL pay it, won't you? The second question is about maintaining the same phone #. I'm surprised they even offered the service. In the past, US West has not offered this luxury. To answer the question, you are most likely moving from one CO to another CO. To maintain the same prefix, they have to lay copper from the old CO to your new residence, or set up an FX line to the old CO. Both will cost you $$$ for set-up, and higher monthly charges (for the extra maintenance). Lastly, why can you call CA for less than your brudder across the street... ? Undoubtedly, the vagaries of supply and demand. \ / C r o s s r o a d s C o m m u n i c a t i o n s /\ (602) 941-2005 300-2400,9600 PEP Baud 24 hrs/day / \ hplabs!hp-sdd!crash!xroads!bakerj
david@cs.uow.edu.au (David E A Wilson) (07/22/90)
noao!xroads!bakerj%mcdphx.UUCP@ncar.ucar.edu (Jon Baker) writes: >The first question regards the exhorbitant 'hook-up' fee. Although >establishing service may involve only a few data-entry operators, the >cost to lay wire to your residence is factored in there also. Even if >it's an existing residence, they need to average the cost out over all >new customers to avoid socking new home owners with a multi-hundred $ >bill. Here in Australia that is exactly how it is done. Back in 1982 the costs were: Providing new service: $150 or $15 if only exchange work is needed. (Handset and line still in place.) Moving service to new address: $75 or $15 (as above). By 1985 it had risen to $190/$30 and $110/$30 and in 1989 it was $225/$45. (No figure for moving.) Even though I had to pay the $225 I still think this reflection of the costs seems fairer. David Wilson david@wraith.cs.uow.edu.au
bakerj@ncar.ucar.edu (Jon Baker) (07/26/90)
In article <9999@accuvax.nwu.edu>, david@cs.uow.edu.au (David E A Wilson) writes: > By 1985 it had risen to $190/$30 and $110/$30 and in 1989 it > was $225/$45. (No figure for moving.) > Even though I had to pay the $225 I still think this reflection of the > costs seems fairer. I don't see how it's fairer. It would preclude many people from having telephones. Is a telephone just a toy for the rich? It may not be a 'right', per se, but nobody should be excluded from having a phone due to exhorbitant hook-up fees. And, if the government offers subsidies to lower-income households to hook up a phone, in the end I'm paying for it anyway. I'd much rather the money not make the trip through Washington ... it seems some of it always disappears on the way :-). JB