john@bovine.ati.com (John Higdon) (03/14/90)
Robert E Stampfli <res@cblpe.att.com> writes: > OK, then it would seem to me that if I request my second line be for > local calls only, with no long distance access, that I should not be > charged this fee. So far I have been unable to convice my telco that > this is the case, even though it would seem I would be paying for > something I cannot use. I'm surprised that no one has thought to mention the relavent point concerning the access charge. In the spirit of "universal service", this is a universal charge. It is not a usage charge; you don't escape it just because you don't use long distance. It's design purpose was to protect telcos' revenue, not to pay for long distance connections. There is no way to get out of it, so you might as well stop spinning your wheels. John Higdon | P. O. Box 7648 | +1 408 723 1395 john@bovine.ati.com | San Jose, CA 95150 | M o o !
johnl@esegue.segue.boston.ma.us (John R. Levine) (03/14/90)
In article <5084@accuvax.nwu.edu> res@cbnews.ATT.COM (Robert E. Stampfli) writes: > >... This charge you question, mandated by law, is to compensate the local > > telco for providing access to the long distance carrier of your choice. >... it would seem to me that if I request my second line be for local calls >only, with no long distance access, that I should not be charged this fee. This is a common misconception. The access charge is for access to the network, not just to LD companies. It was really a way to compensate the telcos for the revenue they lost from traditionally padded long distance rates by raising all of the local rates, without having have tarriff hearings before every state PUC in the country. It would be a lot more honest if the judge set an expiration date for the access charge of, say, January 1991, and all of the telcos adjusted their rates accordingly. I realize that the highly politicized PUCs in many states would make it extremely difficult for the telcos to make up the difference in any reasonable way. Ah, well. Regards, John Levine, johnl@esegue.segue.boston.ma.us, {spdcc|ima|lotus}!esegue!johnl
chris@com2serv.c2s.mn.org (Chris Johnson) (03/15/90)
In article <5084@accuvax.nwu.edu> res@cbnews.ATT.COM (Robert E. Stampfli) writes: X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 10, Issue 167, Message 7 of 8 > >[Moderator's Note: ... (concerning the FCC Toll Access charge) > >... This charge you question, mandated by law, is > >to compensate the local telco for providing access to the long > >distance carrier of your choice. I know the system stinks; much of > >divestiture does; but them's the breaks. ... >OK, then it would seem to me that if I request my second line be for >local calls only, with no long distance access, that I should not be >charged this fee. So far I have been unable to convice my telco that >this is the case, even though it would seem I would be paying for >something I cannot use. Well, what's really stinky about the whole thing is that most phone companies probably bill that charge like US West (nee Northwestern Bell) does: The line on the bill says it is an FCC charge, as if the FCC were getting the money. If you ask for details, the detailed bill says it is an FCC mandated charge. That the FCC specifically set the amount (which as you have noticed I'm sure, has gone up every year since it started -- originally it was "way cheap" at $1 a line or less, and is now pushing past $4 a line here) may be strictly accurate, but it is deceptive "advertising" nonetheless. Most consumers, I'll bet, blame the government/FCC for the charge when they think about it at all. In reality, though, not only does the money go to phone company, but it would be more descriptive to say they are limited to charging only that amount and no more by the FCC. If given a free hand, I'm sure that immediately after divestiture local phone service prices would have gone through the roof in a ballistic sort of way, instead of just growing exponentially at about 7-10% a year. Chris Johnson DOMAIN: chris@c2s.mn.org Com Squared Systems, Inc. VOX: +1 612 452 9522 Mendota Heights, MN USA FAX: +1 612 452 3607
c186aj@cory (Steve Forrette) (03/15/90)
In article <5084@accuvax.nwu.edu> Bob Stampli writes: >OK, then it would seem to me that if I request my second line be for >local calls only, with no long distance access, that I should not be >charged this fee. So far I have been unable to convice my telco that >this is the case, even though it would seem I would be paying for >something I cannot use. I asked Pacific Bell about this a couple of months ago, and much to my surpise, it made sense. A line that can only place local calls *does* have access to the interstate network, as it can *receive* calls from out-of-state. If they could block such calls (they probably can't), I don't know what the answer would be.
Linc Madison <rmadison@euler.berkeley.edu> (03/15/90)
In article <5084@accuvax.nwu.edu> Rob Stamfli writes: >X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 10, Issue 167, Message 7 of 8 > >[Moderator's Note: ... (concerning the FCC Toll Access charge) > >... This charge you question, mandated by law, is > >to compensate the local telco for providing access to the long > >distance carrier of your choice. >OK, then it would seem to me that if I request my second line be for >local calls only, with no long distance access, that I should not be >charged this fee. So far I have been unable to convice my telco that >this is the case, even though it would seem I would be paying for >something I cannot use. Oh, but you'll still have to pay the access charge, unless you manage to get a line which blocks *INCOMING* long-distance calls. The reason I know is that I was the system administrator for a small residential Centrex system (11 lines). One line was the answering machine, left in a public area. To prevent any unexplained calls to Kathmandu, the line was restricted to place outgoing calls only within the Centrex system. However, because the line was still connected to the long-distance system for incoming calls, we still paid the FCC access charge, per Pac*Bell's ever-joyous interpretation of CPUC Tariff. Linc Madison = rmadison@euler.berkeley.edu
David Tamkin <dattier@chinet.chi.il.us> (03/16/90)
Robert Stampfli wrote in TELECOM Digest, Volume 10, Issue 167: | OK, then it would seem to me that if I request my second line be for | local calls only, with no long distance access, that I should not be | charged this fee. So far I have been unable to convice my telco that | this is the case, even though it would seem I would be paying for | something I cannot use. 1. Can your local telco really block all outgoing long distance calls? They can assign no 1+ carrier, but can they block 10XXX? [Perhaps the link is not used for calls dialed via 950-YXXX or a carrier's 800 dial-up, but use of those carries a surcharge that can outstrip the subscriber line charge fairly quickly.] 2. Would the telco really cancel this charge on the strength of a customer's personal solemn promise not to place any long-distance calls? 3. Can your local telco, as Steve Forrette pointed out, block incoming long-distance calls? I truly doubt it. If you receive a long-distance call, you are using the link from the l/d company's local POP to your own CO. You don't even get to choose which long-distance carrier it is, because the caller makes that decision. David Tamkin P.O Box 813 Rosemont, Illinois 60018-0813 | BIX: dattier dattier@chinet.chi.il.us (708) 518-6769 (312) 693-0591 | GEnie: D.W.TAMKIN No two Chinet users agree about this (or anything else). | CIS: 73720,1570
rmadison@euler.berkeley.edu (Linc Madison) (03/21/90)
In article <5236@accuvax.nwu.edu> David Tamkin writes: X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 10, Issue 177, Message 8 of 10 >1. Can your local telco really block all outgoing long distance calls? >They can assign no 1+ carrier, but can they block 10XXX? [Perhaps the >link is not used for calls dialed via 950-YXXX or a carrier's 800 >dial-up, but use of those carries a surcharge that can outstrip the >subscriber line charge fairly quickly.] Oh, yes! (But, of course, they charge you extra for the privilege.) I know 'cause when I were a undergrad, we had a computer terminal in my eating club, with a modem for dialing up the campus mainframe. We were very concerned, though, about leaving a phone in a publicly-accessible area (especially 'cause it were a really cheap modem which required you to dial from a phone). NJBell arranged "toll blocking," which means that any attempt to dial any non-local call would result in re-order. Then again, they didn't actually do it when they said they had. In a similar situation more recently here in California (where I is a grad student), we have a Centrex system with forward-on-no-answer to a common answering machine. The answering machine line is blocked for all non-Centrex outgoing calls, but can receive calls from anywhere. We thus got (at *no* charge, even from Pac*Bell!) a service feature with a name something along the lines of Collect/Third Party Blocking, which prevents any incoming calls from being billed to the line. Linc Madison = rmadison@euler.berkeley.edu