Telecom-Request%usc-eclc@brl-bmd.UUCP (Telecom-Request@usc-eclc) (12/13/83)
TELECOM Digest Tuesday, 13 Dec 1983 Volume 3 : Issue 117
Today's Topics:
taping phone conversations
More on 900 numbers
Push-pulse phones and Bell's mistake
News from the SW: 2 ACCESS CHARGES ????
News from the SW: $650+ million rate hike recommended ...
news from the SW: "...not enough information to support cost figures"
SWB-news: $653 MILLION INTERIM INCREASE APPROVED
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: 10 December 1983 14:02 EST
From: Stephen C. Hill <STEVEH @ MIT-MC>
Subject: taping phone conversations
It is my impression (though G.o.k. that I'm fallible) that the rule
had been changed to "as long as one party to the conversation knows
that the conversation is being taped" a beeper is no longer needed. I
seem to remember that I heard this about 1970-72.
I have been following that dictum ever since. Can anyone provide a
cite?
------------------------------
Date: 10 December 1983 17:43 EST
From: Stephen C. Hill <STEVEH @ MIT-MC>
Subject: More on 900 numbers
Does this mean that they will charge their 50c for the call?
------------------------------
From: allegra!watmath!looking!brad@Berkeley
Date: Sat Dec 10 15:33:19 1983
Subject: Push-pulse phones and Bell's mistake
Recently, I have been quiet annoyed to find that most manufacturers of
telephones are making them with what they call the "universal dial"
system, which means that they have buttons, but they actually send out
dial pulses and it takes a long time. I am glad they advertise this
because it warns me not to buy these phones when what I want is
touch-tone service.
But, sad to say, these phones are proliferating, and that has nasty
implications. Manufacturers make these phones so they only have to
make one model. Customers buy them because they can pretend they are
getting push-button convenience without paying the Bell touch-tone
fee, which here is about $3 per month. Now the silly thing is, Bell
wants to convert everything to tones eventually, because it costs less
to have pure touch tone service than to have pulses or the
combination. But, because of tarriff regs, they have to charge more
for it until the service is universal.
Sadly, the widespread use of these cheap phones throws a spanner in
the works, for Bell will now be forced to support pulse calling for
many years to come. I suspect if they decided to scrap pulse dialing
arbitrarily and give touch-tone phones to everybody who rents from
them, the public uproar would be so immense that they would never get
away with it.
..... Brad Templeton.
------------------------------
Date: Mon 12 Dec 83 00:52:36-CST
From: Werner Uhrig <CMP.WERNER@UTEXAS-20.ARPA>
Subject: News from the SW: 2 ACCESS CHARGES ????
Southwestern Interim Bell Increase Denied by Utility Panel
==========================================================
(Austin American Statesman, Nov 24, 83)
Texas telephone customers won, at least, a 4-month
postponement, Wednesday, from paying a new "access charge" on
monthly bills for in-state long-distance telephone service.
Southwestern Bell telephone company (SWB) asked the State
Public Utility Commision (PUC) last week to approve temporary
access charges of $1.25 a month for residential customers and
$2.35 a month for businesses, pending the outcome of its $1.3
billion rate increase case, in which a ruling is expected in
April 84.
Bell wanted the charges, which it has renamed "common line
charges," to start Jan 1, when it seperates from ATT. The
charges would have continued until the commission settled the
permanent rate case.
But Mary McDonald, a commission hearing examiner, issued an
order Wednesday that blocks the imposition of access
charges on residential and business customers, unitl the
entire Bell rate case is decided by the commission next
spring.
McDonald outlined a plan that places all access charges on
long-distance companies, such as ATT and MCI, until final
action is taken by the PUC.
Access charges, which do not now exist, are supposed to
reimburse Bell and other local telephone companies for
long-distance revenues they will lose when ATT is broken up
Jan 1.
Such charges would be paid by long-distance companies and
local residential and business customers, regardless of wether
they made long-distance calls. They are supposed to reflect
the cost of providing the customer with access to the
long-distance network.
The FCC plans to impose an access-charge starting April 3 to
recover lost inter-state long-distance revenues. The Texas
PUC is considering an access-charge for lost intra-state
long-distance business.
In asking Nov 18 for $977 million interim rate-increase, Bell
said, $776.4 million of it should be paid by access charges on
the long-distance companies such as ATT which handles more
than 90% of the long-distance business, and MCI. Another
$98.2 million, Bell said, should come from access charges on
local residential and business customers.
McDonald's order, unless it is rejected by the 3-member
commission, dictates that all access charges, whatever their
amount, be paid by long-distance companies.
Her decision, however, will not, neccessarily, spare Texas
customers of Bell from all the effects of the proposed $977
million interim rate increase. The interim request includes
an increase of $1.35 per month on standard residential service
as well as a $48 million increase on certain instate
long-distance calls.
Jacqueline Holms, a commission administrative law-judge
handling the BEll-rate case, is expected to rule next week on
proposed interim rates. McDonald's decision also does not
rule out the possibility of access charges once the $1.3
billion rate case is decided next year. In that case, Bell
has asked for monthly residential access charge of $2 and a
business access charge of $5.10.
Dale Johnson, the district staff manager for news and employee
information, said, Bell was pleased with the ruling except for
the decision not to include access charges on residential and
business customers.
Bell will not appeal, he said.
Mill Peterson, division manager for regulatory relations for
ATT, said, his company felt that local telephone customers
should help pay the cost for providing long-distance service
but that ATT might be able to live with McDonald's order
because it is only a temporary solution.
------------------------------
Date: Mon 12 Dec 83 00:55:57-CST
From: Werner Uhrig <CMP.WERNER@UTEXAS-20.ARPA>
Subject: News from the SW: $650+ million rate hike recommended ...
BELL INTERIM RATE BOOST RECEIVES PARTIAL SUPPORT
--------------------------------------------------
(Austin American Statesman, Nov 30)
Southwestern Bell Telephone Company (SWB) deserves $645
million of the $976.9 million temporary rate increase it
seeks, but not from higher bills from local customers, the
staff of the Texas PUC recommended Tuesday.
Bell asked for $976.9 million interim increase - including a
$2.60 boost in monthly residential bills - from Jan 1 until
the PUC rules in April on the full $1.3 billion rate increase
request. The PUC-staff said all of the $645 million increase
should come from other long-distance telephone companies,
including $546 million from ATT which will no longer own Bell
as of Jan 1.
Dale Johnson, a Bell official said, the staff recommendation
was "clearly inadequate."
The company contends that its seperation from ATT will cost so
much, about $830 million a year, that it must have interim
rate increases to keep it financially healthy until the
commission rules in April. BEll has said for years that
long-distance profits subsidize local service. Jacqueline
Holms, the administrative law judge handling the Bell case for
the commission is expected to rule on the interim rate next
week. ATT told the commission that approval of the Bell
request would force it ask for its own interim increase of
more than $200 million on intra-state long-distance calls.
US Telephone Inc., a long-distance company, protested that
interim rates would boost its long-distance bill from $12.8
million a year to $149.7 million a year, an increase of 1070%.
US Telephone charged that the Bell proposal is patently
anti-competitive and most not be tolerated by this commission
because it favored ATT.
Most of the $976 million proposed increase - $776.4 million -
would fall on ATT and other long-distance companies such as
MCI. But Bell also sought $175.3 million in new and higher
monthly charges to local residential and business customers
and $25 million more for certain instate long-distance calls.
Bell sought a $2.60 monthly increase for residential customers
including $1.35 to cover increases in local costs and a new
$1.25 "access charge" to reflect the cost of providing
long-distance service, even if the customer makes no
long-distance calls. A commission hearing examiner, in a
seperate but related proceeding last week, made an interim
ruling on access charges, cut the proposed $1.25 charge for
residential customers.
------------------------------
Date: Mon 12 Dec 83 01:40:22-CST
From: Werner Uhrig <CMP.WERNER@UTEXAS-20.ARPA>
Subject: news from the SW: "...not enough information to support cost
Subject: figures"
BELL plays down reduction in $1 billion rate request
=====================================================
(Associated Press - Wednesday, Dec 7, 83)
A decision by Southwestern Bell Tel. Co. to give up on $43
million of its rate increase request will have almost no
effect on the $1 billion-plus rate increase being sought,
a company official said Tuesday.
Dale Johnson said the company has decided it does not have
enough information to support a request for more money to
cover the cost of centralized services to be provided to the
SWB and six other regional companies that become independent
Jan. 1. The $43 million drop leaves the SW rate increase
request in Texas at $1.32 billion. The initial request, filed
June, was for $1.7 billion, but the company has made several
reductions.
The company expected to have calculated the cost of
centralized services in time for the rate hearing in progress
before the PUC, but cost figures are unavailable, Johnson
said.
The $43 million reduction has "very minimal effect to
ratepayers," he said.
...
------------------------------
Date: Mon 12 Dec 83 01:42:16-CST
From: Werner Uhrig <CMP.WERNER@UTEXAS-20.ARPA>
Subject: SWB-news: $653 MILLION INTERIM INCREASE APPROVED
$653.3 MILLION INTERIM INCREASE GIVEN APPROVAL
=============================================
( Austin American Statesman, Dec 10)
SWB won approval from a Texas PUC official to, temporarily,
enact new charges of $653.3 million a year Friday, but the
Consumer Attorney for the State, immediately, said he would
appeal. $600 million would be paid by long-distance
companies while the remaining $53 million represent higher
charges for what little long-distance business Bell will
retain - non-local calls made within regional areas called
"local access," and "transport areas."
A Bell official said, that Bell would, probably, appeal the
reduction of its $977 million request.
ATT has previously indicated, that in result, it might be
forced to seek its own $200 million interim rate increase to
pay for the long-distance connection to Bell.
Monthly residential and business bills for local service will
not go up .... Bell had requested a $2.60 monthly increase
for residential customers. ....
Jim Boyle, state consumer lawyer for utility matters, said
Holmes (the approving administrative law judge) was "to be
commended that the rates for basic service are not going to
increase," but that he was going to appeal her decision to the
3 PUC commissioners.
Paul Roth, a Bell VP, said the interim order was
"keenly disappointing" and that $653 million "simply is not
enough" to replace the long-distance revenues it will lose
starting Jan 1 ... and complained that this [ reduced
increased ]
"sends a negative signal precisely at the time that the
investment community is carefully evaluating SWB's newly
issued stock."
SWB had asked for $977 million interim increase, pending the
ruling of the PUC, expected in April, on its request for a
permanent increase of $1.3 million in rate and service
charges.
[ Friends, if someone had invented this sad commedy of how the public
is being set up to be milked, I (nobody) would believe it ]
------------------------------
End of TELECOM Digest
*********************