jsol@bu-it.bu.edu (07/13/89)
Okay, you asked for it....:-) New Jersey: I've been in two places, Hoboken (newark,jersey city); and New Brunswick. New Jersey has 2 area codes (not for long); 201 and 609. But that's not what I came to talk about. I came to talk about the Hoboken "local calling area". The Hoboken area has a 3-tier system just like Boston, local calls are the 1 message unit calls for measured service if you buy unmeasured service. Here you can have both in the same house, so if you make alot of calls to zone 2 and 3, you can get a flat rate line for the zone 1 calls and a measured line (which includes 30 units) for zone 2 and 3. Measured service has the advantage that most of the charge for the line is in providing the message units. In Boston, Measured service costs $3.50/month and $2.75 of it is paying for the 30 message units, so you get a phone line for $0.75 if you make enough calls to warrant getting it. Once you leave the "metropolitan area" near Hoboken and Newark, you go into Suburban NJ, where the calling plan basically works like most suburban systems. Local calling to the areas that border yours, and maybe an exchange or two further, and toll calls for the rest. New Brunswick had a fairly large local calling area, and I never lived so far away from Rutgers that calling in via data was a toll call. In this area it is just like the rest of them, you can't get measured and flat rate service in the same area; however, in most of NJ, measured service is designed for those who can't afford or don't want flat rate service. The default is flat rate. The rates for phone service in NJ are quite reasonable. Now onto California. Much of California is a desert wasteland with basically local calling areas much like NJ with toll calling everywhere else. Notable exceptions are the Bay area and LA (where most of the people live ;-)). In these areas, zone calling replaced much of the major local calling some years ago. Local calling areas shrunk in size drastically, and now some places in San Francisco are toll calls (as opposed to cheaper Zone calls) from other places in San Francisco. Basically Pac Tel tried to find some way to increase revenues and the PUC bought it. Right now there is a plan in consideration for returning zone 2 calls to the local calling area in exchange for raising the rate for local service (currently set to $8.25/mo). It is cheap to get phone service in California, but you can't call anywhere. In most cities I have lived in, the zone charges are reasonable, and toll charges either are or aren't. In CT, the toll charges are quite high and SNET receives alot of revenue from them. Local exchange rates are also quite high. SNET has a well managed rate system in my opinion. California has outrageous toll calling rates. The price for a call to San Francisco from LA is higher than a call to Boston from LA by a hefty margin. New Jersey, and Mass, have reasonable toll calling rates within their states. I can talk for 5 minutes to someone on the other side of (508) for about a buck (so they advertize), and it's not much of a bite out of my phone bill to use the phone. I like Mass' multiple-choice local exchange service rates (measured, flat rate, metropolitan, circle calling, etc), since you can pay for what you get. One thing I remember in LA which was being phased out when I lived there was FEX service. If you lived, say in Santa Monica (213-828) and wanted to call the USC dialups (213-743), it was generally suggested that you get a Culver City (213-558) or Beverly Hills (213-556) Foreign Exchange line and make the calls for free. At that time, FEX charging was a bit higher than regular lines, but it was worth it in the cost savings on data calls which had high holding times. Flat rate FEX was axed at the time I was there, so if you *did* get a FEX, you had to pay 20% more than the normal 1 message unit rate on calls made from the FEX. You could still receive calls, but you couldn't make the calls. PacTel seems to have something against DATA calls. NET in Boston doesn't mind them (NET converted all their interexchange lines to T1 and send 24 calls on each set of 2 pairs), however they insist that incoming data lines be business service (higher cost). You don't need FEX service in NET land unless you live outside of the extended Metropolitan Calling area, and want to call into it. You then needed a FEX to the nearest exchange that has Metro service (for residences) or a FEX to the nearest exchange inside the metro calling area, or 1 message unit from your target exchange (business). Nowadays FEXes in California are extremely expensive. Mileage is something like $15/mile and you don't get flat rate service (the installation charge is outrageous). They really discourage the use of FEXes but don't offer any alternative to them. If you make more than $600/month in data calls to one specific number, then you can justify a FEX for that one number. If you require further service, PacTel recommends that you get several PBXes or a Centrexen and run tie lines between your locations and use them to make your calls. Both PacTel and NET are pushing 800 service for incoming use and OUT-WATS for outgoing use to save money. Of course, you don't save much. Basically, PacTel is pushing the high cost of their past mistakes in the setting up of phone service (loans they have to pay back, interest, etc) on those who use the network, while other phone companies are charging their customers for basic service to cover costs (SNET is doing BOTH -- they were the first phone company to be all-dial-it-yourself back when Step Switching was the rage, and now they have to convert to electronic switching and need capital to do it). One final note: In LA, I can remember choosing my place of residence based on the local calling area, particularly if it would be local to USC, where I worked, and got my daily fix of compute cycles. :-) --jsol
ben@sybase.com (ben ullrich) (07/19/89)
In article <telecom-v09i0238m01@vector.dallas.tx.us>, jsol@bu-it.bu.edu writes: > Okay, you asked for it....:-) Yes, you did. (;-) : > Now onto California. [...] > Local calling areas shrunk in size drastically, > and now some places in San Francisco are toll calls (as opposed to cheaper > Zone calls) from other places in San Francisco. This is incorrect. According to my own experience (I LIVE in San Francisco! (;-) ), and the Pac Bell phone directory, all calls from SF prefixes/areas to other areas of SF are zone 1 == no charge. It's areas outside the city (South San Francisco, Marin County, and the East Bay [all different municipalities] that are zone or toll calls. Even so, I am able to call my office in Emeryville (across the bay!) for $0 because it is closer than 8 miles. This is really nice. > Right now there is a plan in consideration for returning zone 2 calls to > the local calling area in exchange for raising the rate for local service > (currently set to $8.25/mo). It is cheap to get phone service in California, > but you can't call anywhere. These statements aren't related. Why would adding a zone to your calling area imply that you ``can't call anywhere?'' Sure, adding zone 2 to the no charge calling area would be nice for those that call those areas a lot, and would likewise be a bummer for those who don't (they get to pay the extra $$ for getting a calling area they don't use). But who knows if this really makes a difference to the average caller? The usefulness of such a move (from a consumer point-of-view) would depend on how much more the extra zone would cost, and how many zone 2 calls are made by how many people. If I remember correctly, the proposal you cite plans to do a lot more than expand free calling areas. I believe it also hopes to give standard subscribers more services (such as touch tone for FREE! (;-) ) for a miniscule increase. I really don't remember the particulars too clearly, though. ...ben ---- ben ullrich consider my words disclaimed,if you consider them at all sybase, inc., emeryville, ca +1 (415) 596 - 3500 this space for rent ben@sybase.com {pyramid,pacbell,sun,lll-tis}!sybase!ben