SKASS@drew.bitnet (07/11/89)
I'm about to move into housing built by my employer, who owns the switch that my phone service will be on. According to everyone I've asked, I will not have a choice of long distance carrier. Access codes won't work (I'll get a busy signal after dialing 1-0, just like I do now from my work phone), and the local company (NJ Bell) says they can't install a phone for me. I'll be renting, but some of the housing units will be sold, and the buyers are in the same situation. Now it's not such a bad deal - free basic service and local calls (a smaller "local" area than NJ Bell), but long distance calls are carried by MCI, and I would do better with AT&T (I subscribe to Reach Out, America and use USprint for nearby calls when the AT&T flat rate is in effect). Maybe MCI has some options like Reach Out, America, but they aren't available to me. What's the legality of all this? Can I get a calling card from anyone at all? Can I use an 800 number for any of my long distance calls, bypassing MCI? Thanks, Steve Kass/Department of Mathematics and Computer Science/Drew University Madison, NJ 07940 / (201)-408-3614 / skass@drew.bitnet
johnw@gatech.edu (John Wheeler) (07/15/89)
In article <telecom-v09i0231m05@vector.dallas.tx.us> SKASS@drew.bitnet writes: >X-TELECOM-Digest: volume 9, issue 231, message 5 of 8 > I'm about to move into housing built by my employer, who owns the >switch that my phone service will be on. According to everyone I've >asked, I will not have a choice of long distance carrier. Access >codes won't work (I'll get a busy signal after dialing 1-0, just like >I do now from my work phone), and the local company (NJ Bell) says >they can't install a phone for me. The apartment complex I live in has the same sort of arrangement. Instead of a Southern Bell line, my service comes from a company called Star*Touch, and they have an agreement with Telecom*USA (all these stars!). The switch simply dials an access number, pops in the appropriate access code, and you have long distance service. They simply have no way of accounting for any other carriers than the one they provide. You, as a user never get a REAL Southern Bell dialtone (even though they actually provide the lines) so you have no way of dialing 10+ codes. Of course you can use the surcharged Travel Card 800 numbers... -- Turner John Wheeler E N T E R T A I N M E N T ...!gatech!nanovx!techwood!johnw Networks Techwood Library * home of Superstation TBS * TNT * TBS Sports
john@apple.com (John Higdon) (07/18/89)
In article <telecom-v09i0239m06@vector.dallas.tx.us>, techwood!johnw@gatech.edu (John Wheeler) writes: > The apartment complex I live in has the same sort of arrangement. Instead > of a Southern Bell line, my service comes from a company called Star*Touch, > and they have an agreement with Telecom*USA (all these stars!). The switch Is all this for real? It sounds like the plot of a scary, futuristic movie. It almost seems that what Judge Greene does with one hand is undone with the other. Divestiture was supposedly going to enhance competition, improved service offerings, and create a healthy business climate for telecommunications. So instead what we have is an apartment complex owner linking up with some get-rich-quick scam operation to deny residents the opportunity of choosing their long distance carrier, deprive them of having local operating company special services, and effectively cut them off from the outside world. So if Star*Touch charges the normal monthly local service rate, they make tons of profit, since they will only be paying for a fraction of the number of trunks compared to the number of subscribers they will be serving. And so if a resident can't call out because all trunks are busy, who cares? He has no choice. Where's he gonna go? And what about the resident who wants ten lines? I sure hope this bad idea never catches on! -- John Higdon | P. O. Box 7648 | +1 408 723 1395 john@zygot.uucp | San Jose, CA 95150 | M o o !
mcb@ncis.tis.llnl.gov (Michael C. Berch) (07/18/89)
SKASS@drew.bitnet writes: > I'm about to move into housing built by my employer, who owns the > switch that my phone service will be on. According to everyone I've > asked, I will not have a choice of long distance carrier. Access > codes won't work (I'll get a busy signal after dialing 1-0, just like > I do now from my work phone), and the local company (NJ Bell) says > they can't install a phone for me. Hmmm. Isn't there some sort of tariff that requires RBOCs not to refuse to install residential service in various places where it might be more expensive than the normal installation? What grounds does NJ Bell give for refusing to install normal service? This sounds like a pretty poor deal; I would have to be *very* satisfied with my employer to agree to something like this, since it sounds like the potential to screw the consumer is very high. What sort of housing is this? I assume it isn't a military base or other government reservation, since it was mentioned that some units will be sold, but it sounds rather unusual. Even student/faculty housing on most campuses does not have this problem. -- Michael C. Berch mcb@tis.llnl.gov / uunet!tis.llnl.gov!mcb [Moderator's Note: There is indeed a tariff which says the local Bell cannot refuse to provide service to any QUALIFIED subscriber. A qualified subscriber is any person who has exhibited an *ability* and *willingness* to pay for the service. The correspondent should contact the local telco office, and order service. He'll need to meet any reasonable credit requirements they may impose. If telco says they will not install service, then he should immediatly ask to speak with the manager. He should advise the manager that he does not wish to be placed in a position where he must appeal to the Chairman's Office, but he will do so if the manager is unable to arrange the installation promptly. The next step would be to appeal to the Chairman, then file a formal complaint with the appropriate utility regulators. They know the rules, as does the Chairman and most likely the manager. He will wind up getting local service from the telco; from there, getting AT&T on the line is a breeze. Actually, when his complaint hits the regulators, he will get a call back from the Chairman's office. In truth, it will be a highly placed flunkie authorized to respond in the Chairman's name. He'll get his service. PT]
johnl@uunet.uu.net (John Limpert) (07/20/89)
In article <telecom-v09i0243m03@vector.dallas.tx.us> zygot!john@apple.com (John Higdon) writes: >So instead what we have is an apartment complex owner linking up with >some get-rich-quick scam operation to deny residents the opportunity of >choosing their long distance carrier, deprive them of having local >operating company special services, and effectively cut them off from >the outside world. I am in a similar situation with cable TV service. The apartment complex owner supplies a poor quality, overpriced service that uses a microwave distribution system instead of the "official" county cable system. I was told that the building owner solicited bids from a number of companies (~6) and picked the best offer. Are phone companies and cable companies both considered common carriers? I would be interested in any information on the legal aspects of this situation. Does the owner have the right to only grant access to those companies who give him the best kickbacks? -- John Limpert johnl@gronk.UUCP uunet!n3dmc!gronk!johnl
ELINSKY%YKTVMX.BITNET@cunyvm.cuny.edu (Jay Elinsky) (07/20/89)
The moderator describes how to convince the local Bell company to install
regular phone service in an employer-built housing complex. But doesn't
the phone company need the housing complex's permission to run wires or to
use the existing wires? Do they have to give permission?
Jay Elinsky
IBM T.J. Watson Research Center
Yorktown Heights, NY
[Moderator's Note: Telephone companies have easement rights, permitting
them to cross your property with their wires, etc. Likewise, here in
Illinois, cable companies have easement rights; that is, a landlord cannot
prohibit a cable company from providing service to an individual tenant.
Here in Chicago however, cable firms as well as telco have a monopoly
status granted to them based on neighborhood. PT]