Telecom-Request%usc-eclc@brl-bmd.UUCP (12/01/83)
TELECOM Digest Thursday, 1 Dec 1983 Volume 3 : Issue 110
Today's Topics:
Re: French Terminals
MCI makes progress in plans to provide dial service to Europe
Rates for long-distance
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: 28 Nov 1983 2335-PST
From: Rob-Kling <Kling%UCI@USC-ECL>
Subject: Re: French Terminals
Thanks for your note. I checked my Teletel brochure and find that one
keyborad option is AZERTY. I was wrong in identifying it as Dvorak.
[An aside: I have found the French I've met in Paris and provincial
cities extremely courteous and helpful. They often appreciate my
attempts to speak elementary French. Stories of "arrogant Parisians"
who expect impecable French can probably be matched by stories of
arrogant New Yorkers who won't tolerate poor English. I have met
arrogant French, but they are much the exception as are arrogant
Bostonians, etc.]
French once was THE international langauge, and I have found that some
French technologists and public officials emphasize French as an
official language. English, for example, is the official publication
language for IFIP. French is not. At the IFIP'83 Congress, all
sessions were translated into French (the host language) and English.
It is in this context that I thought the French-only instructions for
Teletel "uncompromising."
The main problems with the Teletel system were not the French
instructions. First, the system often registered as "busy" after one
probed through several levels of menuing and at times that it appeared
lightly loaded. The IFIP Congress actually drew about 50% of the
expected attendence, and Teletel was the only medium for sharing
messages with colleagues. No "official" bulliten boards - Teletel. If
it was actually "busy" as often as indicated, the PTT installed a
significantly undersized system.
Second, the system's responses were often cryptic & it appeared to be
nearly impossible to send messages during the first day or two of the
Congress when one did get a set of system prompts which indicated that
it was "working."
These experiences lead me to wonder about the conditions under which
Teletel (and other PTT sponsored systems) are designed and deployed.
There is little competition. Competition alone does not insure good
human factors. (It is difficult to believe that UNIX has come so far
and still remains sensitive to the case of commands!) However, there
are some virtues to many-party competitive markets, and that is not
likely in the short run in France re. these products. I suspect that
the PTT was trying to showcase Teletel and they installed an
unworkable package. I interpreted their French-only instructions as a
sign that conference iparticipants would have to deal with Teletel on
terms set by its designers and the PTT. No compromises. This is,
perhaps, a misreading of the rationale for French only documentation.
It is not the first time in history of computing that a product is
clumsy or unworkable.
However, back to the main point: This limited exposure to Teletel does
not encourage me to expect that users of the PTT provided telephone
terminal system have an easy time using it.
Perhaps some readers of Telecom have had direct experience with the
Fench terinal directory systems in a household setting.
Rob Kling
------------------------------
Date: 29 Nov 1983 2250-EST
From: John R. Covert <RSX-DEV at DEC-MARLBORO>
Subject: MCI makes progress in plans to provide dial service to Europe
MCI announced that they have received permission to conduct
engineering trials of directly dialed calls into Belgium and Greece.
MCI has had difficulty connecting with the European operating
authorities, who are quite concerned about the break-up of AT&T's
monopoly. Currently European countries are only willing to connect
with AT&T for voice service.
They are quite fed up with the situation they face in the telex,
teletex, and data communications marketplace, where they have to
interconnect with multiple IRCs.
Facing the same situation in voice communications, including a
requirement to permit their subscribers to choose a carrier when
calling a party in the U.S. (as they must with record communications),
is causing increasing concern.
Though MCI emphasizes they do not have any operating agreements with
any European countries, this is the first indication that they are
making progress at all.
The Federal Government recently struck down AT&T's monopoly on
international voice communications, permitting MCI to begin service to
and from Canada.
MCI is also working on an agreement to provide service to and from
Australia.
[Note that there is really no reason for calls to Europe to cost three
or four times more than calls to Hawaii. We may see some interesting
changes in telephone rates. Of course there is not necessarily any
requirement that, for example, the German Post Office, even if they do
permit calls to be placed from Germany on MCI circuits, would offer
rates lower than the current rates, which are approximately $4/minute.
AT&T's rates from the U.S. to Continental Europe are 1.33, 1.00, and
.80 per minute depending on the time of day. They might also, then
decide not to permit their subscribers to choose the carrier, but
rather simply do some form of load balancing on each carrier's
circuits.]
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 30 Nov 83 12:03:18 EST
From: Will Martin (DRXAL-FD) <wmartin@brl-bmd>
Subject: Rates for long-distance
Will any of these new long-distance alternatives and/or mechanisms
eliminate the disparity between the rate charged for a call from your
home phone and one placed from another phone TO your home phone?
It has long irritated me that, when I travel, I cannot make a call
FROM a pay or hotel phone TO my home at the same rate as my wife can
make the call FROM my home phone TO me at the remote location. Even
with no operator assistance, using an automated calling card entry
system, there is still an add-on calling-card-use charge, at least in
the locations I have called from. Also, are not the rates different
when calling from within different BOC areas?
I've never understood the charge for calling-card use; I would think
that it costs the electronic billing system the same to pick the
bill-to codes off the identification of the calling line, as is done
when you call from your own phone, or to enter the bill-to data from a
calling-card data entry process. So why the surcharge? (Of course, to
gouge the ratepayers if they can get away with it -- but why does any
Public Service Commission (or equivalent) allow it?)
I suppose using one of the alternative services (MCI, SPRINT, etc.)
may get the same rate for the call, no matter which direction it goes,
but I don't have one of these yet, not having Touch-Tone. Will any of
the new procedures or methodologies eliminate the disparity?
Will Martin (WMartin@Office-3)
------------------------------
End of TELECOM Digest
*********************