Telecom-Request%usc-eclc@brl-bmd.UUCP (Telecom-Request@usc-eclc) (01/05/84)
TELECOM Digest Wednesday, 4 Jan 1984 Volume 4 : Issue 3
Today's Topics:
Access Charges and other Break-Up issues
dial tone after hangup
Dial-tone after hanging up
new Bell Atlantic
UK Telephone Dialing Codes
Wiring charges
Cheap Error-Free Phone Communications
Access misnomer
Extended area calling
Re: UK codes
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: 2 Jan 1984 1949-EST
From: John R. Covert <RSX-DEV at DEC-MARLBORO>
Subject: Access Charges and other Break-Up issues
Nat at Yale is concerned about rehashing old material, but everyone is
confused about this, so we probably should rehash it.
There is absolutely no question that LD rates have been subsidizing
local rates. Though a lot of the record keeping at AT&T is confusing,
this is obvious without looking at AT&Ts records: Those companies
which were not Bell System companies have been getting direct payments
from AT&T for the long distance traffic offered to AT&T by the
independents. In fact, many very small independent companies are only
profitable because of this subsidy, which is much greater than the
cost of the switching equipment within their plant to provide long
distance service.
"Access charge" was probably a poor choice of terms, since it has been
so misused by calling it a "Long-Distance-Access-Charge." It isn't;
it is a network access charge. An access charge for the access to any
part of the telephone network.
You're right; this is what your local phone rate is supposed to pay.
But your local rates are determined by local regulatory authorities,
and the FCC has created a national problem (while trying to solve
another national problem -- more later). The FCC wants this solved
with a national-scope solution. Congress also wants a national-scope
solution, but a different one.
One alternate solution is to make the LD carriers continue to pay the
same amount to the local companies by making the cost of the LD
carrier's connection much higher than it really costs, thereby
continuing the subsidy.
The problem with this is that this encourages the LD carrier to build
facilities directly into large LD user's facilities (into corporate
headquarters, large hotels, and airports (which they're already
doing!)) thereby BYPASSing the local company. The local company now
has lost NOT ONLY the subsidy over and above the cost of providing
this service, but also the legitimate revenue associated with the cost
of this service. (This service is, in fact, the non-fixed-cost part
of an LD call, which the LD carrier will be paying to the local
company. Determining the rate for this is bizarre, as well. In most
cities, each exchange has direct toll trunks for AT&T traffic, (this
is not the case in the New York Metro area, but a realignment of
tandems may make it the case). Thus the variable cost part is not
much different than the variable cost part of a local call.
So another patch gets applied -- the Universal Service Fund -- which
is paid into by all LD carriers. Now we've got another problem --
defining who pays how much into this universal service fund for what.
If I have a private right-of-way over which I operate long-distance
service for myself (within my company, say within a power company
along my power transmission facility), is that bypass, and do I have
to pay into the universal service fund?
The question about long-distance calls within a local company requires
an understanding of the LATA concept. Even though both ends of an LD
call may be in the same company (e.g. Boston and Springfield are both
served by New England Telephone within Massachusetts), unless they are
in the same LATA, the LD service must be provided by an LD company.
The LATAs were presumably set up with the capabilities of the local
companies in mind; only the local company may provide service within
the LATA.
This means that MCI may not provide service between, for example,
Montauk Point (the eastern end of Long Island) and West Point (these
are the eastern and northern points of the NYC Metro LATA) but can
provide service from West Point to Newburgh (assuming the New York PUC
grants them a franchise).
I mentioned earlier that this new national problem solves another
national problem. That problem was the monopoly of AT&T. (Though
this may have been one case where a monopoly was in our national
interest -- it was a monopoly and was against the law. So either the
law had to be changed or the monopoly had to be broken up.)
All the comments "If it ain't broke, don't fix it" ignore what was
broken -- not the phone system, but the free-enterprise system. By
breaking off the local companies from AT&T, the other LD carriers will
now, presumably, be able to compete fairly with AT&T.
I still think AT&T will win, even in the free enterprise system. If
they really are allowed to compete -- but it's likely that most of
their rate reductions will be challenged as being anti-competetive, as
using their huge corporate size to introduce products at below cost.
And here we leave the realm of telephony, and need discuss this no
further in this digest.
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 2-Jan-84 20:33:32-PST
From: Lauren Weinstein <vortex!lauren@RAND-UNIX>
Subject: dial tone after hangup
The exact behavior of dialtone return to a callee after calling party
hangup varies from CO to CO, depending on the type of switching
equipment, and also sometimes on the origin of the call.
Generally, ESS offices revert to dialtone quickly at hangup, while #5
Xbar may take 20 to 25 seconds -- during which time enough line noise
may be present to keep VOX answering machines taping away merrily. On
intraoffice calls in Xbar, and sometimes even occasional interoffice
calls, immediate reversion to dialtone may occur, but this is fairly
sporadic and installation dependent. With Step X Step offices, all
bets (as usual) are off -- most Bell System step offices revert to
dialtone immediately, while many GTE exchanges may or may not revert
at all -- depending on the exact wiring of the final selector banks in
the particular office. In fact, in GTE step, a single line may change
in this characteristic at random times, since routine equipment
changes may result in altering that "critical" wiring. In cases where
the line never self-reverts, even a VERY short momentary interruption
of the line is enough to clear the circuit and restore dialtone.
I have considerable experience in radio/teleproduction, voiceover
work, and the like, and I can tell you that 90% of the time, any
"telephone conversations" you hear in radio spots are carefully edited
for maximal effect, with hangups, dialtones, dialing, and similar
"effects" separately added in most cases. So, don't try to draw ANY
conclusions about the "real world" from what you hear in radio
commercials!
--Lauren--
------------------------------
Date: 3 Jan 1984 0011-EST
From: John R. Covert <RSX-DEV at DEC-MARLBORO>
Subject: Dial-tone after hanging up
This Hollywoodization of the phone system has always bothered me, too.
What happens is going to vary depending on the type of exchange at
each end and any tandems in between.
The cases of an outgoing caller getting an immediate dial-tone when
the called party hangs up are VERY rare, in fact, I can't think of any
specific examples; but there probably are some.
The called party is more likely to get dial tone in a shorter amount
of time after the calling party hangs up, but this, too, is seldom
immediate.
Hollywood also likes to have people flash the switchhook rapidly
whenever the call is disconnected. I suppose people really do this,
but the reason for it comes from the days when most exchanges were
manual -- this was to recall the operator! But even in the later days
of cord boards, this was not the proper way to recall an operator; a
single, deliberate flash (just like the one to activate add-on) would
activate a circuit in the cord which flashed until the operator
responded.
------------------------------
Date: 3 Jan 1984 0015-EST
From: John R. Covert <RSX-DEV at DEC-MARLBORO>
Subject: new Bell Atlantic
Even though both Diamond State Telephone and C&P of Maryland are both
under the new Bell Atlantic, they are still separate companies and are
separately regulated by the separate state PUCs.
------------------------------
Date: 3 Jan 1984 0053-EST
From: John R. Covert <RSX-DEV at DEC-MARLBORO>
Subject: UK Telephone Dialing Codes
According to British Telecom; the places mentioned in Carl's message
cities with "All-figure numbers." To call one of these numbers, dial
all the figures. There is no separate dialling code.
What this means is that people in those cities are supposed to ALWAYS
state their number in the format 021-246 8071.
People in other cities are required to show there number as follows:
Aberdeen (0224) 34344. The exchange name is required by callers
within the local call area so they can refer to their list of local
call dialling codes for the correct code to use.
This is one of the more bizarre features of the British telephone
system -- someone from a town adjacent to Aberdeen will not dial 0224;
they'll probably dial something like 93. And on the other side, they
might dial 96.
Back to the cities with all-figure numbers... Did everyone notice that
the Birmingham is 0B1-xxx xxxx, Edinburgh is 0E1-xxx xxxx, etc? This
continues in the Numbering Plan... Reading is 0RE4, Coventry is 0CO3,
(in England, the O was on the zero -- new phones have no letters,
though) Worcester is 0WO5, Cambridge is 0CA3, Dover is 0DO4.
Of course, this isn't true for all cities, but it is for quite a few.
------------------------------
Date: 3 Jan 1984 0121-EST
From: John R. Covert <RSX-DEV at DEC-MARLBORO>
Subject: Wiring charges
I'm sure this is a case where the tariffs really need to be consulted.
Fortunately, Massachusetts has no wiring charges, but for a brief
period they had an extension charge which I ran afoul of because I had
given them all the registration numbers. I was able to convince them
that I could not have more extensions than jacks, and they took the
charge for the extra one off.
Doesn't the wiring charge apply to the number of New York Tel
maintained jacks? Can't you use any one of the existing New York Tel
jacks as the Network connection point, and run your wiring from there?
(You can in Massachusetts -- of course, this is a mess if none of the
jacks are in a good location to run a wire back to the central
distribution point.)
It seems you should be able to tell them "This is the only jack I
want; I'll connect my wiring here." Here in Massachusetts I was told
that this was my only option... they would not even come out if I
wanted them to to install a new network interface. (That seemed like
a silly answer; they certainly would have come out and disconnected
everything and installed a new jack in the basement if I wanted them
to. For a price. It wouldn't have been the same cute little jack
with the test button, but that's their problem as long as I have
enough extra phones to be sure any problem is theirs before making
them come out.)
If you can get the whole wiring charge (you said $2.81, plus tax)
eliminated for $40, then DO IT unless you're planning on selling the
house within the next year and a half!
On the Touch-Tone charge; if you aren't using it, they can't make you
pay for it. (If your exchange can't block you from using it, then
they still can't charge you for it, but they can charge you
retroactively (to the date of registration), disconnect your service,
or request the state to bring fraud charges against you if they find
you have been using it.)
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 3 Jan 1984 04:19:04 EST
From: HAGAN.Upenn-1100@Rand-Relay (John Dotts Hagan "The Kid")
Subject: Cheap Error-Free Phone Communications
I am interested in statistics about the expected error rate when using
modems in the U.S. For example, how many errors should I anticipate
when sending to CA from NY over 1200 baud using 212A Bell modems?
I know that the above question is very dependent on many factors, but
I was wondering if anyone had any information or pointers to
literature that would claim evidence about one protocol or another
being better or worse over long distance, ect.
Specifically, I want to send "error-free" data from a central host to
several receiving sites throughout the U.S. I was wondering how I
could cheaply reach that goal.
One route I know of is error detecting/correct modems (about $1000).
Any alternative ideas? Any facts on expected error rates?
Thanks in advance! John Hagan
P.S. Please send to me personnally (Hagan%UPenn-1100@CSnet-Relay)
since I do not receive this digest regularly.
------------------------------
Date: Tuesday, 3 Jan 1984 06:15:50-PST
From: decwrl!rhea!donjon!goldstein@SU-Shasta
Subject: Access misnomer
Nat Mishkin's comment about "access charges" points out the misnomer
which they are. They aren't there for YOUR access to L.D., they're
there for L.D.'s access to you! BUT that doesn't mean they are purely
there because of LD cost.
Somewhere in the distant past (the 30's), the Supreme Court ruled that
phone facilities used for both interstate and intrastate calling were
legally in both jurisdictions. That meant that AT&T had to "separate"
its toll revenues, paying back some to the local telcos for use of
their facilities. Originally, the percentage of local line usage that
was interstate was the percentage of the local investment that was
moved to the interstate rate base. Later that got marked up,
constituting a subsidy. For example, if 10% of all calls in a state
were interstate, then (original rule) 10% of the cost of local lines
was legally ATT Long Lines', and 90% the local telcos. Today that
would be over 30% ATTs, because of the markup (called SPF, subscriber
plant factor).
With competition, such orderly separations don't work. Which
interstate carrier pays? Hence access fees. The FCC wanted
originally to have the local customer pay the INTERSTATE portion of
the FIXED cost, as an "access charge", to REPLACE what ATT had been
picking up as their share of the rate base (i.e., the interstate
share). This is not nonsensical at all, since the COST of providing
local service would not go down if there were no interstate calls.
But it did constitute an effort by the FCC to get around the
"separations" idea. Politics being what it is, that plan is now being
replaced by who-knows-what.
Fred
------------------------------
Date: Tue 3 Jan 84 14:58:36-MST
From: William G. Martin <WMartin@SIMTEL20.ARPA>
Subject: Extended area calling
For those that have asked, by the way, I am in Southwestern Bell
territory, in St. Louis, Missouri. The telephone to which I wanted to
get some sort of extended local service is in Warrenton, MO, and is
serviced by "an independent", as the SW Bell Business Office people
daintily put it. They say that there is no way for me to get any
low-cost extended service to include that exchange or number. Since it
is another company, they can't (or won't) say if that company offers
any option to make that number local to me. I am guessing that
anything they might provide would be one-way, not allowing local-rate
calls from a St. Louis number TO that Warrenton number. After all,
the independent could only sell a service which would reduce its own
revenues; it couldn't (or wouldn't be allowed to) reduce SW Bell
revenues by selling its own customers a service which would reduce the
costs to another company's (SW Bell) customers by eliminating LD
charges those customers would otherwise pay.
Will Martin (who started all this discussion in the first place...)
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 3 Jan 84 17:20:08 EST
From: Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) <cmoore@brl-vld>
Subject: Re: UK codes
The 7 digit phone numbers I have seen with the 1 & 2 digit UK codes
include 3 digit prefixes of the NXX (not NNX) form. (Reminder: X is
any single digit; N is any single digit EXCEPT 0 or 1.)
------------------------------
End of TELECOM Digest
*********************