TELECOM@Usc-Eclb.ARPA (04/13/83)
TELECOM AM Digest Wednesday, 13 April 1983 Volume 3 : Issue 24
Today's Topics:
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: 9 Apr 1983 1434-PST
From: ROODE at SRI-NIC (David Roode)
Subject: long distance access charge
The label on the bill would more properly read
Monthly Service $12
Add'l Monthly Service Formerly Recovered $ 7
Out of AT&T Long Distance Revenues
I do not think this has anything to do with the matter of splitting
AT&T up. Rather it stems from the decision to allow competition in the
long distance market. The total volume of long distance will increase
significantly--AT&T will just have a smaller share, which can no
longer (and never should have) subsidize the cost of local service.
Another wrinkle: to avoid a further deviation would require that the
increase be applied only to flat-rate customers, with measured
customers subjected to metering on their long distance calls (at local
rates) in addition to the costs of whatever long distance service they
desire to use. Not only are the costs being shifted from long
distance to local, but they are being shifted from usage-sensitive to
non-usage-sensitive as well. An effect counter to those who use their
phone subsidizing the "existence cost" for the phones of those who do
not is being seen here.
------------------------------
Date: 10 Apr 83 12:34:42 EST (Sun)
From: smb@mhb5b
Subject: long distance access charges
Reply-To: smb@unc
One more point about the access charges -- the alternative considered
by the FCC was a surcharge on long-distance *calls*, rather than a
flat rate; this was rejected because it would encourage the formation
of private networks by large corporations.
-Steve Bellovin
smb.unc@udel-relay
------------------------------
Date: 10 Apr 1983 1155-PST
From: GRANGER.RS%UCI@USC-ECL
Subject: Automated Calling Card authorization and dialled international calls
To those of you who have been interested in Calling Cards and the new
automated authorization system, I offer the following anecdote (which,
by the way, has not yet ended -- I'll keep you posted):
Our Story: In the predawn hours of a bleak winter morning in
Brookline, Mass., a certain Bell customer (namely, me) regretfully and
reluctantly leaves the warm comfort of his guest-bed (I'm a
houseguest, you see, visiting some friends) to take advantage of
off-peak IDDD rates to Italy (the rates change at 7 AM, and the only
time of day you can call Europe off-peak without it being the middle
of the night there is in the early morning hours here).
Not wishing to add to my friends' phone bill, I naturally opt to use
my Calling Card (issued by Pacific Tel, since my home and, therefore,
my residential service, are in Orange County, California). Now New
England Telephone, I know from previous experience, has recently
implemented a system of automated authorization for Calling Card
numbers: it works on both domestic U.S. and international calls, and
eliminates the need for operator-assistance by permitting you to use
the tone-dial buttons to enter your Calling Card number. The way it
works is as follows: on domestic U.S. calls, you dial "0" instead of
***Error on net connection***
{TELECOM@Usc-Eclb.ARPA (04/13/83)
TELECOM AM Digest Wednesday, 13 April 1983 Volume 3 : Issue 24
Today's Topics:
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: 9 Apr 1983 1434-PST
From: ROODE at SRI-NIC (David Roode)
Subject: long distance access charge
The label on the bill would more properly read
Monthly Service $12
Add'l Monthly Service Formerly Recovered $ 7
Out of AT&T Long Distance Revenues
I do not think this has anything to do with the matter of splitting
AT&T up. Rather it stems from the decision to allow competition in the
long distance market. The total volume of long distance will increase
significantly--AT&T will just have a smaller share, which can no
longer (and never should have) subsidize the cost of local service.
Another wrinkle: to avoid a further deviation would require that the
increase be applied only to flat-rate customers, with measured
customers subjected to metering on their long distance calls (at local
rates) in addition to the costs of whatever long distance service they
desire to use. Not only are the costs being shifted from long
distance to local, but they are being shifted from usage-sensitive to
non-usage-sensitive as well. An effect counter to those who use their
phone subsidizing the "existence cost" for the phones of those who do
not is being seen here.
------------------------------
Date: 10 Apr 83 12:34:42 EST (Sun)
From: smb@mhb5b
Subject: long distance access charges
Reply-To: smb@unc
One more point about the access charges -- the alternative considered
by the FCC was a surcharge on long-distance *calls*, rather than a
flat rate; this was rejected because it would encourage the formation
of private networks by large corporations.
-Steve Bellovin
smb.unc@udel-relay
------------------------------
Date: 10 Apr 1983 1155-PST
From: GRANGER.RS%UCI@USC-ECL
Subject: Automated Calling Card authorization and dialled international calls
To those of you who have been interested in Calling Cards and the new
automated authorization system, I offer the following anecdote (which,
by the way, has not yet ended -- I'll keep you posted):
Our Story: In the predawn hours of a bleak winter morning in
Brookline, Mass., a certain Bell customer (namely, me) regretfully and
reluctantly leaves the warm comfort of his guest-bed (I'm a
houseguest, you see, visiting some friends) to take advantage of
off-peak IDDD rates to Italy (the rates change at 7 AM, and the only
time of day you can call Europe off-peak without it being the middle
of the night there is in the early morning hours here).
Not wishing to add to my friends' phone bill, I naturally opt to use
my Calling Card (issued by Pacific Tel, since my home and, therefore,
my residential service, are in Orange County, California). Now New
England Telephone, I know from previous experience, has recently
implemented a system of automated authorization for Calling Card
numbers: it works on both domestic U.S. and international calls, and
eliminates the need for operator-assistance by permitting you to use
the tone-dial buttons to enter your Calling Card number. The way it
works is as follows: on domestic U.S. calls, you dial "0" instead of
"1" as the prefix to the area code+ number, and, instead of an
operator instantly intercepting with his/her customary "Your billing,
please?" or "May I help you?", you get, first, a simple beep tone, and
then, if you do not respond to it within a pre- specified time-out, a
pre-recorded voice message which says (quite firmly, it seems!):
"Please enter your Calling Card number NOW." It waits a few more
seconds, and if you still insist on sitting there dumbfounded and
don't do anything, THEN, finally, a live operator comes on the line.
PRECISELY this same sequence of events takes place on an international
call, when you dial 01 instead of 011 as the prefix to the country
code, local area code, and number.
Now, since I am a relatively hip user of the Bell System, I know
enough to enter my Calling Card number at the first beep, thus
obviating the necessity for operator-intervention. And, in fact, that
is what I did on the particular occasion being recounted here in Our
Story: I dialled an international call and entered my Calling Card
number myself, without requiring operator-assistance. When I did this,
the pre-recorded voice came back on with a courteous "Thank you," and
the call went through. I talked for less than one minute, and,
according to page A59 of the Orange County White Pages for 1982-83,
should have been billed $1.42 for one minute of off-peak ("economy"),
direct-customer-dialled conversation.
But lo! Arrives my bill from Pacific Tel about a month later, and what
should I find in the long-distance itemized calls section, to my
dismay, but an item from precisely that time and date tagged with the
code for "operator-assisted!"
I am indignant. How DARE they charge me for operator-assistance when
there was none? How DARE those rogues try to skim an additional $5.63
from me to pay the wages of a non-existent operator! I call the
business office in a blind rage.. I explain to them what happened. They
of course have never heard of automated Calling-Card authorization --
"Sir, it is just IMPOSSIBLE to use a Calling Card without
operator-assistance." I correct them, gently, at first, then firmly,
then forcefully, then angrily. I speak to three supervisors and the
business-office manager. Naturally, they think I am some sort of
Crazy Person.
And, naturally, I refuse to pay the $7.05 I have been billed, and
instead pay the $1.42 I should have been billed, and deduct the $5.63
difference from my payment. And, just as naturally, my bill for the
past few months has continued to reflect the additional $5.63 as a
balance due. So far, I have not had any harassment over it, but, when
and if, I am determined to take it to the PUC and/or FCC and beyond,
if necessary, to receive my due redress!
Callers of the World, Unite! You have nothing to lose but the Bell
System's sneaky billing practices!!!!
To be continued, if and when...
[Don't blame the Bell System, Pacific Telephone is on its own now!
--JSol]
------------------------------
End of TELECOM Digest
**********************
-------