ergo@ames.arc.nasa.gov> (06/26/90)
In <9235@accuvax.nwu.edu> john@bovine.ati.com (John Higdon) writes: >How much do you suppose call-waiting, call forwarding, etc., ad >nauseum cost the telco to provide? (Hint: $0) Wait just a moment. Your assumption seems to be that since the current hardware can provide a service without additional operating cost, the service costs the nothing to provided. But the day-to-day costs aren't the only cost; there's also the cost of developing these extra features. True, once they went to the new digital technology, these extra feature were a minor addition, but they still required *some* development. Why should the telco spend even a little extra for a feature if they can't charge extra for providing it? By your argument, no software package for a personal computer should cost much more than $25: the cost of the diskettes, printing the manual, and packaging. Which ignores the cost of *developing* the package. It is true that if they just passed the extra cost of call waiting, etc., on to all customers, it'd add a trivial amount to the monthly bill. But I hardly need to explain why no private business works that way.
Heath Roberts <heath@shumv1.ncsu.edu> (06/27/90)
In article <9235@accuvax.nwu.edu> John Higdon <john@bovine.ati.com> writes: >How much do you suppose call-waiting, call forwarding, etc., ad >nauseum cost the telco to provide? (Hint: $0) But you pay handsomely >every month for these services with nary a complaint. Oh, the telco >had to install the switch that could handle it, but since all modern >CO switches can now handle such things, eventually this cost will >become moot. This isn't quite true. Telephone companies have to pay quite a bit for the software (and sometimes hardware) to provide these advanced features. Software from NT often costs as much as the switch. And it's not a one-time expenditure. BNR releases four new BCS's per year. >And how about rural telephones? With certain exceptions, rural >customers pay about the same as their urban counterparts -- for >service that costs the telco many times the amount to provide. The utility fee is based in _average_ costs, not the "last unit" cost. Is it fair to charge more to people who happen to live farther from the telco's line concentrator? I should point out that this wouldn't necessarily have anything to do with how far away from the center of a given metropolitan area, only how far you were from a piece of equipment arbitrarily located by some engineer. This also brings up the point that telephone service is often considered a necessary utility; it may be worth it to society in general to make the service available to as many people as possible. >If anyone is going to protest TT charges on the basis of cost, he/she >must be consistent and object to Custom Calling charges as well. After >all, unless you are served out of a switch that can handle custom >calling intrinsically, your local telco must install adjunct tone >receivers to enable TT calling. ANY switch requires more tone receivers to support more TT lines. They're getting cheaper, so this is becoming a moot point. The current-break detector used for pulse-dial lines is still cheaper, though. Once again, the software required for custom calling features costs the telco quite a bit. Then again, TT dialing saves the telco money since wrong numbers are less common and dialing is faster, thereby reducing overhead (non-talk) time to complete a call. My point is simply this: providing custom calling services _does_ cost the telco more than Plain Old Telephone Service, primarily in software and support but, also in the higher-power processors and additional RAM required for the switch. And neither hardware nor software from NT or AT&T is cheap. Heath Roberts NCSU Computer and Technologies Theme Program heath@shumv1.ncsu.edu
Dave Levenson <dave%westmark@uunet.uu.net> (06/27/90)
In article <9219@accuvax.nwu.edu>, skl@van-bc.wimsey.bc.ca (Samuel Lam) writes: > The telephone company here in B.C. charges for unlisted numbers in > much the same way. They charge an installation fee of several dollars > and then charge you several dollars *per month* for keeping your > number unlisted. It probably costs the telco more money to answer all those directory-assistance requests they get when people have unlisted numbers than it does to list numbers in the paper directory. Also, they lose revenue when the people who would have called you don't because they can't get your telephone number. Dave Levenson Voice: 201 647 0900 Fax: 201 647 6857 Westmark, Inc. UUCP: {uunet | rutgers | att}!westmark!dave Warren, NJ, USA AT&T Mail: !westmark!dave [The Man in the Mooney]
John Higdon <john@bovine.ati.com> (06/27/90)
Isaac Rabinovitch <claris!netcom!ergo@ames.arc.nasa.gov> writes: > Why should the telco spend even a little extra > for a feature if they can't charge extra for providing it? Maybe just to provide more up-to-date service. > It is true that if they just passed the extra cost of call waiting, But what IS this extra cost? You can't get a generic for any switch today that doesn't have the usual custom calling features built in. Frankly, I anticipated that there would be at least someone who didn't read what I said. But a better example was this: Heath Roberts <heath@shumv1.ncsu.edu> writes: > This isn't quite true. Telephone companies have to pay quite a bit for > the software (and sometimes hardware) to provide these advanced > features. Call waiting, call forwarding, and three-way calling are not, repeat not advanced features. They have been part and parcel of stock generics for over twenty years. Try to buy a switch without them. > Software from NT often costs as much as the switch. And which release does not contain the usual custom calling? How much cheaper is it than that which does? Are the fees based on how many customers are subscribing to the features? If not, wouldn't it be better for the telco to charge everyone (spread the cost around)? > ANY switch requires more tone receivers to support more TT lines. > They're getting cheaper, so this is becoming a moot point. The > current-break detector used for pulse-dial lines is still cheaper, > though. Are you saying that there are electronic (analog or digital) CO switches out there that are not 100% TT equipped? What backwater telco could possibly be that cheap (or stupid)? I'm not being a wise guy; I'd really like to know. Not even Pac*Bell would be that silly. > Once again, the software required for custom calling features > costs the telco quite a bit. Then again, TT dialing saves the telco > money since wrong numbers are less common and dialing is faster, > thereby reducing overhead (non-talk) time to complete a call. My original point was: if telcos are expected to charge for custom calling, then why not TT? To say that TT reduces costs for various reasons is disingenuous. It could just as legitimately be said that call waiting increases revenues for the telco by allowing calls to be completed that would otherwise end in busy signals. Or that forwarding allows the telco to charge twice for one call, or that three-way encourages more calls (and more call revenue). As a sidebar, GTE Mobilnet dropped all of its monthly charges for all of its six custom calling features and just provide them as part of the service to its contract customers (at a reduced overall monthly rate at that). If features cost so much to provide (or don't intrinsically generate revenue) why would Mobilnet bother? John Higdon | P. O. Box 7648 | +1 408 723 1395 john@bovine.ati.com | San Jose, CA 95150 | M o o !
langz@eng.sun.com (Lang Zerner) (06/29/90)
In article <9183@accuvax.nwu.edu> john@bovine.ati.com (John Higdon) writes: >Lang Zerner <langz@eng.sun.com> writes: >> ... PacBell has finally ... removed the "value-added" fee for Touch-Tone >Oh? When did they remove it? I'm still paying it, last time I checked. OK. To be precise, PacBell announced in a bill-stuffer that Pac Bell has applied to the PUC that the charge be removed. The proposal still gets to go through an open hearing and all the rest of the red tape. Unfortunately, I did not save the notice, since it is not all that important to me. Nevertheless, John's message encouraged me to get mor detailed info for others who may be more interested than I. The Pac Bell employees I spoke with did not seem to know much about application, except that it had been sent to the CPUC (they no doubt got the same notice in their bills :-). The CPUC was a bit more helpful. After calling the CPUC (415/557-0647) and getting connected to the telecommunications dept., I was transfered to Mr. Galen Dunham, "the man who really knows about that." While courteous and affable, Mr. Dunham did not even know the application number of the proposal. He was able to tell me that similar proposals have come up in the past and failed to make the tariffs mainly because of the cost of new plant. Mr. Dunham explained that eventually, the justification for the fee (cost of new plant) will not be there anymore, at which point the tariff change will go into effect. Mr. Dunham then referred me to Ms. Pat Ma (415/557-3766) and Ms. Sheila Otteson (415/557-1580), "the people who really know details about the proposal"). I have been trying to reach them to get the application number, but to no avail. I've left a message with them, and if they call back I will post what I learn. Otherwise, I won't bother, but interested parties now know how to contact them. Be seeing you... Lang Zerner langz@prodigal.sun.com 415/594-9268 P A T R I C K A. T O W N S O N (The Cheerful Iconclast) ptownson@cs.bu.edu ptownson@chinet.ch.il.us ptownson@eecs.nwu.edu Unique Zip Code 60690-1570 MCI Mail: 222-4956 AT&T Mail: !ptownson
tjfs@tadtec.uucp (Tim Steele) (06/29/90)
Point in favour of British Telecom (gosh, they need them!): TT service is FREE on those exchanges that are TT equipped (conversion is taking some time, but many exchanges are now TT compatible). Point against: the charges for "Star Services" (three way, code calling &c) are confusing (they charge more than their brochure says!), convoluted (I defy anyone to work out what a particular package will cost!) and too high (but then I would say that, wouldn't I?!). The full package (from memory) is UK#16.52 per quarter plus 15% VAT (sales tax). Too much. Tim tjfs@tadtec.uucp ...!uunet!mcvax!ukc!tadtec!tjfs Tadpole Technology plc, Science Park, Milton Road, CAMBRIDGE, CB4 4WQ Phone: +44-223-423030 Fax: +44-223-420772 Telex: 817316 TADTEC G
grieggs@jpl-devvax.jpl.nasa.gov (John T. Grieggs) (07/03/90)
>Lang Zerner <langz@eng.sun.com> writes: >> I don't know if anyone has reported this yet, but PacBell has finally >> given in to my incessant whining and removed the "value-added" fee for >> Touch-Tone service. Another data point: I recently moved to a PacBell service area from a GTE service area (finally!). The customer service rep was a lot friendlier than I am used to, and was a LOT more knowledgable about stuff. I refused Touch-Tone service, to see if tones would work anyway, since the start-up fee and monthly service fee are no different whether you get them right away or later. Tone dialing works, so I saved the $3.00 startup fee and the $1.20 monthly service fee. Nice to win one. John T. Grieggs (Telos @ Jet Propulsion Laboratory) 4800 Oak Grove Drive, Pasadena, Ca. 91109 M/S 301-320T (818) 354-0871 Uucp: {cit-vax,elroy,chas2}!jpl-devvax!grieggs Arpa: ...jpl-devvax!grieggs@cit-vax.ARPA
plouff@kali.enet.dec.com (07/04/90)
In article <9364@accuvax.nwu.edu>, john@bovine.ati.com (John Higdon) writes... >Isaac Rabinovitch <claris!netcom!ergo@ames.arc.nasa.gov> writes: >> It is true that if they just passed the extra cost of call waiting, >But what IS this extra cost? You can't get a generic for any switch >today that doesn't have the usual custom calling features built in. ...and... >Heath Roberts <heath@shumv1.ncsu.edu> writes: >> This isn't quite true. Telephone companies have to pay quite a bit for >> the software (and sometimes hardware) to provide these advanced >> features. >Call waiting, call forwarding, and three-way calling are not, repeat >not advanced features. They have been part and parcel of stock >generics for over twenty years. Try to buy a switch without them. Historical questions: when was the last date that AT&T sold switching equipment _without_ 100 percent tone dialing coverage? Competitors? When was the last date AT&T sold switches without at least some "custom calling" features as standard? Competitors? References such as magazine articles would be most appreciated. This is a relevant question for those of us who live with backwater telephone service from NYNEX, as well as arteriosclerotic regulation by the Mass. PUC. Wes Plouff, Digital Equipment Corp, Maynard, Mass. plouff%kali.enet.dec@decwrl.dec.com Networking bibliography: _Islands in the Net_, by Bruce Sterling _The Matrix_, by John S. Quarterman
john@bovine.ati.com (John Higdon) (07/09/90)
plouff@kali.enet.dec.com writes: > This is a relevant question for those of us who live with backwater > telephone service from NYNEX, as well as arteriosclerotic regulation > by the Mass. PUC. Moo, moo, moo! Come to California some time if you want backwater. Come to California if you want arteriosclerotic (or just plain silly) regulation. F'rinstance -- I just talked to one of my major upstairs Pac*Bell contacts. He says that CLASS will hopefully become available second quarter 1991. He says that hardware is in place, but that there is still nothing resembling a tariff. So much for regulation. Now for backwater. Pac*Bell is still saddled with major amounts of crossbar (mostly in northern CA). In order to continue to use this junk, they were forced several years ago to install the NAC CONTAC to the switches which mainly enables FGD. Wonderful, you say. However, there were side effects. Unadorned crossbar has no trouble counting pulse dialing at 20 pps. CONTAC must see 9-12 pps. Outside of this window is not permitted. Also, Pac*Bell has just decided that post-dial delay resulting from the CONTAC operation may be too long. What an understatement. For a DDD call to LA using AT&T it take three seconds to connect on my ESS and ten seconds on my crossbar line. That's more than 300% longer! BTW, there are eight prefixes of crossbar left in my CO alone! (Crossbar for all of you outside of tel-hell [CA] is that electro-mechanical stuff you read about in books that now have yellow pages.) Now what was that about backwater? John Higdon | P. O. Box 7648 | +1 408 723 1395 john@bovine.ati.com | San Jose, CA 95150 | M o o !
heath@shumv1.ncsu.edu (Heath Roberts) (07/10/90)
In article <9487@accuvax.nwu.edu> plouff@kali.enet.dec.com writes: >Historical questions: when was the last date that AT&T sold switching >equipment _without_ 100 percent tone dialing coverage? Competitors? >When was the last date AT&T sold switches without at least some >"custom calling" features as standard? Competitors? References such >as magazine articles would be most appreciated. >This is a relevant question for those of us who live with backwater >telephone service from NYNEX, as well as arteriosclerotic regulation >by the Mass. PUC. I can only speak directly of Northern Telecom, but I am assured by customers who work with AT&T equipment they ATT's systems are similar. To the first question: all switches come with tone receivers. But you need more than one tone receiver for a large switch: if you provide touch-tone service to 10,000 lines, you might need twenty of them. If your customers use the phone a lot, you might need thirty. The more lines you want to connect to tone receivers, the more tone receivers you need. Only one line can send tones to a given receiver at a time. The hardware to detect current loop (off-hook or pulse dialing, which is just a bunch of closely-spaced off-hook signals) is present on the line card itself: there's one per subscriber loop in the switch. So you can't really just ask about "100% coverage". It doesn't work that way. Trying to provide more touch-tone service without adding capacity is like trying to push a thousand cars an hour down a two lane road: things back up, everybody gets slowed down, etc. You have to add extra lanes in the long run. On the issue of software: switches are like cars. There's the basic model (switch o.s., no call processing) and then there are the features. Call processing is a popular one, so everybody orders it. ;-) In fact, a telephone switch would be useless without it. But beyond the basic POTS and switch O/S, everything's optional. Just like cars, there are attractively priced packages of common options, but they still cost extra. It always takes more hardware (and software) to provide these features -- you don't get something for nothing. The price of the hardware is coming down, but you need more and more of it (you can actually put four Gigabytes of RAM--memory, not disk space--on your DMS-100 now if you need it). Software's also getting to be more and more complex, so telcos are spending proportionally more on software than they used to. These costs are the reason I think I'm justified in saying that CLASS features, although not "advanced" in concept, and even though they're pretty common, cost operating companies more to provide than POTS. Heath Roberts NCSU Computer and Technologies Theme Program heath@shumv1.ncsu.edu
Jim Olsen <olsen@hecate.ll.mit.edu> (07/10/90)
>Historical questions: when was the last date that AT&T sold switching >equipment _without_ 100 percent tone dialing coverage? >This is a relevant question for those of us who live with backwater >telephone service from NYNEX, as well as arteriosclerotic regulation >by the Mass. PUC. Don't put all the blame on the Mass. PUC. A some of the blame goes to Attorney General James Shannon. Shannon 'represents the public' before the PUC, and ensures that the rate structure remains 'fair'. The Honorable Mr. Shannon's idea of 'fair' rates means keeping residental rates as low as possible, and jacking up everything else (business rates, tone dialling, CLASS, 'long' distance [what a joke!]), irrespective of the actual costs involved. New England Telephone's new rate proposal, which attempts to more accurately reflect costs, is of course blatantly 'unfair' according to Shannon, since residential rates would rise. Ain't politics wonderful? (BTW, Shannon is up for re-election this year.)
john@zygot.ati.com (John Higdon) (07/11/90)
In article <9532@accuvax.nwu.edu> Heath Roberts <heath@shumv1.ncsu. edu> writes: >line card itself: there's one per subscriber loop in the switch. So >you can't really just ask about "100% coverage". It doesn't work that >way. Trying to provide more touch-tone service without adding capacity >is like trying to push a thousand cars an hour down a two lane road: >things back up, everybody gets slowed down, etc. You have to add extra >lanes in the long run. Whenever a telco orders a switch, it has a pretty good idea what the traffic patterns will be on it. Since it was necessary to know in the old crossbar days how many "originating registers" would be required in a particular application, it is similarly necessary to know how many TT receivers will be required in a digital switch. Mr. Heath's implication is that an unlimited number rotary subscribers can be off hook dialing calls. Not true. The switch must be configured for expected traffic whether it be rotary or TT. TT receivers are cheap and a relatively few of them can serve many subscribers. >Software's also getting to be more and more complex, so >telcos are spending proportionally more on software than they used to. >These costs are the reason I think I'm justified in saying that CLASS >features, although not "advanced" in concept, and even though they're >pretty common, cost operating companies more to provide than POTS. Not to mention writing their own. Some telcos (like Pac*Bell) buy source licenses with their digital switches. This not only brings down the cost of individual features, but allows the telco to provide services that don't come with the equipment in the first place. Pac*Bell offers a number of subscriber features on the NT DMS100 that are not available from the manufacturer. John Higdon | P. O. Box 7648 | +1 408 723 1395 john@zygot.ati.com | San Jose, CA 95150 | M o o !
david@cs.uow.edu.au (David E A Wilson) (07/16/90)
Touchtone may be cheaper than pulse dialing in terms of the equipment required to process it and the time it takes to process the dialing but the exchange must still support pulse dialing. Is this true? If so, it may be the only justification for charging more for tone dialing. Have any exchanges been built/modified so that ONLY tone dialing works? David Wilson