Telecom-Request%mit-mc@brl-bmd.UUCP (Telecom-Request@mit-mc) (02/25/84)
TELECOM Digest Saturday, 25 Feb 1984 Volume 4 : Issue 27
Today's Topics:
Re: Telephone headsets
for Telecom Digest
AT&T Card Caller Phones
Calling Cards
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: 23 Feb 84 17:00:18 PST (Thursday)
Subject: Re: Telephone headsets
From: Bruce Hamilton <Hamilton.ES@PARC-MAXC.ARPA>
Reply-to: Hamilton.ES@PARC-MAXC.ARPA
I visited the Plantronics booth at OAC. They have both on-the-ear and
in-the-ear headsets. For info you can write
Plantronics 345 Encinal St. Santa Cruz, CA. 95060
The distributor down here wants $139.95
Plantronics just came out with a speakerphone with IR wireless remote
clip-on mike. I asked about when that technology would come out in a
headset, and they said 3Q84, but it will wholesale for over $100 and
probably retail around $300. BOO!
I'm inclined to take the plunge and buy the "cheap" $50 headset that
my JS&A-style catalog has advertised.
--Bruce
------------------------------
Date: Friday, 24 Feb 1984 05:55:17-PST
From: (David Ofsevit..ZKO2-2/K29..381-2665)
From: <decwrl!rhea!glivet!ofsevit@Shasta>
Subject: for Telecom Digest
I've been reading a lot, in Telecom and elsewhere, about local
phone rates going up to make up for the lost long-distance "subsidy."
Could somebody please explain to me why the following line of action
isn't being followed:
Clearly local rates could be held at the former low levels if
the local companies received income from some other source equal to
what they used to receive from long-distance rates. Why don't the
local companies charge the long-distance companies (AT&T, MCI, Sprint,
etc.) before allowing those companies access to the local network?
Sure, the recent rulings have been that all long-distance companies
should have equal rights of access to the local networks, but is there
something in those rulings that the long- distance companies get this
access at an artificially low price? After all, without the local
networks the long-distance companies have no way for their customers
to place long-distance calls, and it is in the interest of the long-
distance companies to make sure that the local customer base is as
large as possible. Therefore, they should be willing to pay a
reasonable price for the privilege of being connected to the local
networks. Such a situation would drive up long-distance rates, but
probably to the point where the relative costs of local service to
long distance would return to the ratio that has existed up to now, a
ratio which (judging by the current uproar) people seemed to be
satisfied with. Why doesn't the Texas Public Utilities Commission (or
whatever the ruling body there is called) tell Southwestern Bell to
put such a rate structure in place? They have the power to set rates
for access to the local telephone network; they should exercise that
power to maintain the balance of charges for that access between
individual customers and the long- distance companies, both of whom
need that access.
In another part of the deregulation question, am I mistaken or
has there been a false picture painted for the general public about
why Bell was broken up? Ask the average person in the street and they
will tell you that the big bad government broke up Bell because of
some misguided anti-trust sentiment. But didn't Bell ask for it, at
least in part, so that it could spin off its least profitable and most
regulated entities (the local operating companies) and go into more
highly competitive and profitable parts of the business such as
building and selling computers?
David Ofsevit
------------------------------
Date: 24 Feb 1984 1803-EST
From: John R. Covert <RSX-DEV at DEC-MARLBORO>
UUCP-Address: "{ucbvax,allegra,decvax}!decwrl!rhea!castor!covert"
Subject: AT&T Card Caller Phones
I've been told (by AT&T) that the Card Caller Phones are now appearing
at various places in the New York City area, New Jersey, and
Philadelphia. Locally, AT&T says there are some in the Boston area,
but they didn't know where; they just said I should look in Bus
Terminals, Hotels, etc.
One place I won't have to look -- Logan Airport. Logan Airport has
signed an agreement with the local operating company to provide
"choose the carrier" service from the Charge-a-Call phones. For at
least the next year, it seems Bell has shut AT&T out.
Of course, "choose the carrier" service is already available from
Charge-a-Calls via 950-10xx.
I suppose the fact that space is at a premium at airports has caused
this to happen.
------------------------------
Date: 24 Feb 1984 1844-EST
From: John R. Covert <RSX-DEV at DEC-MARLBORO>
UUCP-Address: "{ucbvax,allegra,decvax}!decwrl!rhea!castor!covert"
Subject: Calling Cards
I think the requirement that N0/1X exchanges have Calling Cards with
special numbers instead of the telephone number is a Pacific Tel-ism.
This may have been caused by the fact that PaTel had this type of
exchange back in the days of the 10 digit cards. With the 14 digit
cards this is no longer necessary. Someone in New York or Chicago
might be able to confirm the existence of the other type of number in
an N0/1X exchange.
In fact, newer requests for cards in California might no longer have
this problem.
The reason you don't want special number cards to work this way is not
immediately obvious. But consider a company with 5000 special number
cards all billed to the main listed number. People could call the
main listed number and try a few PINs, pretty soon a valid one would
be discovered. Not very useful except for calling that number, since
the special number wouldn't be known.
I doubt that the database that validates the PIN has the billing
number anyway, since it doesn't need it. The transaction just needs
to be sent to the RAO, which can be determined from the RAO on the
card in the case of the special cards and from the NPA-NXX in all
other cases.
You've got a good case to press for a new Calling Card number,
however.
------------------------------
End of TELECOM Digest
*********************