john@zygot.ati.com (John Higdon) (09/17/89)
Over the past months, a number of disturbing manuvers have been
executed by Pacific Telesis. It would appear that in direct
contradiction to the spirit of Judge Greene's order, our RBOC is trying
to re-create the old Bell System.
In the past year, Pacific Telesis has attempted or received approval
from appropriate agencies to provide the following:
Voice Mail
Cable TV Service
VideoTex
AudioTex
InterLATA Long Distance Service
Telephone Equipment Vending
In short, it looks like a major attempt to become a one-stop
telecommunications shop once again.
Some items to consider:
Pac*Bell has finally obtained its long-sought ability to arbitrarily
disconnect 976 providers. In a recent federal court decision, Pac*Bell
was told that it could disconnect any provider that had "obscene"
material. The determination of "obscene" is, of course, left in the
hands of none other than Pac*Bell.
It doesn't take much imagination to see what a tremendous advantage
that would give Pac*Bell in the AudioTex field. It would be "obscene"
if some competitor was taking away busines from PB, ergo turn him off!
We're already seeing what control of the network can do for a
promotional effort. When I was in the equipment vending business, it
was quite common for PB to contact one of my customers and darkly imply
that if they got their equipment from "the phone company", that their
service would improve substantially.
A friend of mine, who is currently in the equipment business, has
documented proof that PB is perpetually causing trouble on a customer's
trunk. He reports trouble, they clear it, and the next day it's bad
again. When, on behalf of his customer, he asked someone at PB what all the
trouble was, he was told that "there seemed to be cronic trouble with
the CPE". That was followed with a well-timed call by a Pac*Bell rep
who raved about the virtues of Centrex to the customer's telephone
administrator. Of course there had been no trouble with the CPE; if
there had there would have been major charges levied by Pac*Bell.
This Thursday, there will be a discussion by industry players on the
matter of Pac*Bell's entry into the VideoTex field at the State
building in San Francisco. Yours truly will certainly be there watching
the PUC, Pac*Bell, and videotex providers battle it out.
John Higdon | P. O. Box 7648 | +1 408 723 1395
john@zygot.ati.com | San Jose, CA 95150 | M o o !chet@apple.com (Chet Wood) (09/21/89)
john> Over the past months, a number of disturbing manuvers have been
john> executed by Pacific Telesis. It would appear that in direct
john> contradiction to the spirit of Judge Greene's order, our RBOC is trying
john> to re-create the old Bell System.
john> [ ...lots of complaints about PacBell muscling in everywhere... ]
I have been waiting to whine about a pet peeve of mine for quite a
while. This is a good chance, though it's a nickel-dime matter compared
to John's complaints.
Yesterday I was ordering new service and the lady asked me if I wanted
touch-tone service. I said no, and she acted real surprised and said,
"Don't you have any pushbutton phones?" I said "they're pulse" and
that satisfied her.
I think that's distinctly fraudulant. If they are going to be allowed
to push so hard for their extra dollar a month, at least they should
be limited to correct terminology and ask, "aren't you using
Touch-Tone (TM) phones?"
I had had non-touch-tone service in my home for years-- I was able to
use touch-tones to dial with no problem, and was rather proud that I
was avoiding the $1 + per month ripoff. About a year or two ago, the
business office called my wife on some pretext to "review" our phone
service, asked her the same question, and pressured her into ordering
the extra service.
They probably are raking in several million dollars a year on that scam.
Why are they be allowed to charge extra for this anyway? I'm sure
it doesn't cost them anything, given today's technology-- pulse
dialing may even cost them more, since the line must be open longer.
John, I've heard that the PUC has a bbs. Would it do any good if I
called them up and complained?
Chet Wood ~ (408)727-3357
arc!chet@apple.COM . Advansoft Research Corporation
chet@arc.UUCP . 4301 Great America Parkway
apple!arc!chet . Santa Clara, CA 95054, USAellisond@ncar.ucar.edu (Dell Ellison) (09/23/89)
In article <telecom-v09i0390m07@vector.dallas.tx.us>, arc!chet@apple.com (Chet Wood) writes: > Yesterday I was ordering new service and the lady asked me if I wanted > touch-tone service. I said no, and she acted real surprised and said, > "Don't you have any pushbutton phones?" I said "they're pulse" and > that satisfied her. > I think that's distinctly fraudulant. If they are going to be allowed > to push so hard for their extra dollar a month, at least they should > be limited to correct terminology and ask, "aren't you using > Touch-Tone (TM) phones?" I totally agree with you that they shouldn't push people into paying for "Touch-Tone" when they don't really need or want it. However, "Touch-Tone" is just a trademark. I think it's better to use the following terminology: DP Dial Pulse DTMF Dual Tone Multi-Frequency I think these are more common in the industry.