TELECOM%usc-eclb@brl-bmd.UUCP (08/08/83)
TELECOM Digest Tuesday, 2 Aug 1983 Volume 3 : Issue 45
Today's Topics: Vadics and 212As
AT&T, MCI Cut Their Own Throats
Computer Use By Phone
Topic Header In Digest 44
Documentation Of 818 Area
409 Area Code
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: 30 July 1983 12:03 EDT
From: Peter J. Castagna <PC @ MIT-MC>
Subject: TELECOM Digest V3 #30
I know this is very late, but I couldn't help being disconcerted by
your calling Vadics and 212A's expensive. In the use for which they
were originally developed (which wasn't for the terminal market) the
212 was developed mainly to SAVE money for users (mainly in the 25%
phone costs they maintain, which over a period of 5 years @$20/mo/line
is more than the purchase price of the modem as it was then. Now,
with VADIC's going for $325 in large quantities, payback is on the
order of 2 years. The original market was for businesses doing data
transfer, with 24-hour connections and constant use, and a fixed
amount of data that must be trans- ferred.
Does anybody agree that filters are the high-cost part of modems? For
your vadic price you should be able to get a truly remarkable hdx
modem which depends on the Phone Company for its filtering.
Besides, with 45 Megabit customer service right around the corner, why
trifle about what kind of war club is more economical? I hear that
single-mode fiber optic cable has just about hit price equivalence
with multi-mode fiber.
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 30 Jul 1983 13:39 EDT
From: Jon Solomon <JSOL%MIT-OZ@MIT-MC>
Subject: AT&T, MCI cut their own throats
I'm glad to hear that the House and Senate are considering the
"universal access fund" as an alternative to billing residence
customers for the cost of providing long distance service.
There are several reasons why it is more reasonable to bill the
carrier for providing the service than to bill all residence
customers. First of all, not all Residence Customers use long
distance, especially in rural areas. Second, local phone service is
going to increase fast enough just to pay for the new innovations in
local telephone equipment that will become available in the next few
years. The cost of my local service more than doubled about 5 years
ago in Connecticut, going from about $6.00 to about $15.00/month, In
California, the PUC is currently debating whether or not to give
Pacific Telephone their increases, doubling their phone rates as well.
Long Distance carriers can recover the cost of providing long
distance service by instituting "initial minute" charges, like AT&T
currently has.
As an additional suggestion, I would like to see the telephone company
provide a service which does not permit long distance calls, and said
service should be free of "access fees". If we must be assessed this
"tax" (there is no other word for it), I propose that access to long
distance carriers be a choice the customer makes, just like the color
of his phone and whether or not to order Touch Tone (tm).
Well, that's my opinion. For the most part, I feel angry and helpless
at not being able to shape my own telephone service needs. With this
new legislation being discussed by the House and Senate, I feel a bit
more in contact with the law.
------------------------------
Date: 29 Jul 83 1612 PDT
From: David Fuchs <DRF@SU-AI>
Subject: Computer Use by Phone
"Computer User by Phone May Be Costly" --Wall Street Journal, July 29
Much higher telephone bills may face residents of some states who
connect their personal computers by telephone to larger computers that
provide mail and other services electronically--if the telephone
company finds out about their computers
The increases result from ``information terminal tariffs,'' special
telephone rates begun during the 1960s by some of American Telephone &
Telegraph Co.'s operating companies for the use of their phone lines
to send and receive data. The companies say the rates are higher than
ordinary residential rates because sending and receiving data makes
heavier use of the lines. [???]
[We have discussed in previous digests the issues of using phone lines
for data. In short the connection is held for the duration of the call
which means that for several hours the particular interoffice trunk is
unusable by others. In periods of high load this can really affect
performance. --JSol]
But the tariffs took effect before the personal-computer revolution,
when only businesses were transmitting data by phone, says Robert
Braver, a personal-computer owner in Okalahoma [sic] City.
Personal-computer owners use their phones much less than businesses
for data transmission, he asserts. ``So why is the phone company
charging me a superhigh rate?'' he asks.
Mr. Braver says his basic monthly telephone bill recently rose to
$45.90 from $9 after the phone company found out that he was using his
home telephone for computer messages.
Southwestern Bell, which serves Oklahoma, defends the propriety of Mr.
Braver's bills but acknowledges that ``technology has sort of
surpassed some of the tariffs we have on file.''
Though the tariffs apply in several states, mostly those served by
Southwestern Bell, Mountain Bell and Southern Bell, few
personal-computer owners have been billed under them. The telephone
company doesn't try to discover who is transmitting data over its
lines, says a Southwestern Bell spokesman.
One reason may involve the legal issue. ``It's not hard
technologically for the phone company to monitor the lines, but
whether that's an illegal invasion of privacy is difficult to tell,''
says Lee Selwyn, a telecommunications expert with Ecoomics &
Technology Inc., a consulting company.
Meanwhile, Mr. Braver isn't planning to pay his increased bills
without a fight. He's organizing a fund-raising campaign to mount a
legal challenge to the tariff. And he's making contacts fast with
potential contributors-- through his electronic mail network.
-David Stipp
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 1 Aug 83 7:47:07 EDT
From: Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) <cmoore@brl-vld>
Subject: topic header in digest 44
The header "NPA 409 separated from 713 in Texas last night" might be
misleading; it might be interpreted as "409 was created last night"
when the text suggested "as of March".
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 1 Aug 83 12:01:24 EDT
From: Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) <cmoore@brl-vld>
Subject: documentation of 818 area
I looked up LA--Northeastern phone book of Jan. 1983 and found
announcement of new 818 area code (already mentioned many times in
this digest) to take effect Jan. 7, 1984. I have heard about this
making LA a 2-area-code city, but the list I saw for 818 has no
prefixes with the "Los Angeles" place name. What other exchanges
would pick up part of city of LA? Does Los Angeles & vicinity have
the 911 emergency number, and is it distinct for the city of LA? (In
the 215 area, dialing 911 from 835 & 839 does NOT get Phila. police,
because these are Bala Cynwyd prefixes, even though message-unit calls
from there are at the rates for the neighboring part of Philadelphia.)
[The "Los Angeles" exchange is still in 213, all the other parts of
the city have their own exchange designators, such as Van Nuys, Canoga
Park, North Hollywood. These examples are still part of the city of
Los Angeles, but are different rate areas. If you look at a map of the
city broken down by exchanges, you will find that West LA is a segment
of Los Angeles which does not border on the "Los Angeles" exchange (it
is bordered by Beverly Hills, Van Nuys, Reseda, Santa Monica, and
Culver City (did I forget Mar Vista?). In any event, the city WILL be
split, even though all of the Los Angeles exchange is still in 213.
--JSol]
------------------------------
Date: Mon 1 Aug 83 16:16:53-CDT
From: Clive Dawson <CC.Clive@UTEXAS-20.ARPA>
Subject: 409 Area Code
Alas, I'm all too familiar with the consequences of the fact that 409
is not shown in most Texas phone books yet. My phone number in
area-code 512 happens to be the same as that of the Holiday Inn in
Beaumont, TX. People calling the Holiday Inn reach me on the average
of 10-15 times a week.
Sigh.
------------------------------
End of TELECOM Digest
*********************
-------