TELECOM@Usc-Eclb.ARPA (04/09/83)
TELECOM AM Digest Sunday, 10 April 1983 Volume 3 : Issue 23
Today's Topics:
Product Report - StarMate Headsets
New Proposals For Telephone Charges In Atlanta
Long Distance Access Charges (2 Msgs)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: 8 Apr 83 12:08:49 EST
From: Gene Hastings <HASTINGS@CMU-CS-C>
Subject: Re: Headsets
To: Hamilton.ES@PARC-MAXC
The device you want is a "Starmate" (MH0224-1) from Pacific
Plantronics (234 Encinal St., Santa Cruz). It is one of their Starset
IIs attached to a switch box that goes in series with a modular
handset. It has a volume switch and a trasfer key (handset/headset).
Its drawback is that it's $163.60 ($147.30 10-24) list. It does not
have the standard double phone plug like an operator's headset does,
so it can ONLY be used in the handset line.
Other alternatives are: get a jack-equipped set from your
telco, or add a Jackset youself (this would not be portable); make
your own version of the Starmate; make your own station set that
accepts whatever you please using one of the hybrid chips from TI
,AMD, SGS, etc.
JS&A has a headset style cordless phone in their catalog,
(answer only) but as of last month, they still weren't available ( I
understand this is not unusual for JS&A).
Gene
------------------------------
Date: 8 Apr 83 2:07:30-EST (Fri)
From: Mljfw.emory at UDel-TCP
Subject: new proposals for telephone charges in Atlanta
Well, if this doesn't take the cake. At present, Atlanta, Georgia has
one of the largest districts for local calls. i.e. one can call a
good ways away without incurring long distance charges. But recently,
it has been proposed that the local calling area be chopped up into
different districts. As a result, places that are now local would be
long distance. This really isn't so bad, I mean they have to make
their money somehow, but what is bad is that they want to make place
within WALKING DISTANCE long distance. { this may or may not be
true... my info is from various sources including editorial columns in
Atlanta newspapers. }
I hope it doesn't pass.
Jay Weiss
< mljfw @ emory >
------------------------------
Date: 8-Apr-83 15:52:38-EST (Fri)
From: cbosgd!mark@Berkeley (Mark Horton)
Subject: long distance access charges
re:
[I think you miss the point, it's not Flat Rate Long Distance,
it's a charge to get on, and a metered charge to use the
service. Perhaps that metered charge will be the same no
matter where you call (eventually?), but imagine paying
$7.00/mo + measured rates per call for local service, and
$7.00/mo + measured rates per call for long distance. --JSol]
Are you saying the local rates are supposed to go down to compensate
for the new access charge? I wouldn't mind this, but this is NOT what
is happening. The local rates are going UP, and by whopping amounts
that make the gas increases look reasonable! There has been no
mention whatsoever of reducing the local rates. And even if you could
claim that the local rates are going up less than they would have
otherwise, how can you claim that the local rates would have otherwise
gone up by over 100%?
[You are correct, Local rates will probably NOT go down. The figures I
quoted were just an explanation. Rates will go up, however the way
this is implemented will end up being different than most people are
used to. Local telephone service charges will probably be split into
two parts, the part which is the original service charge, and the part
which was the AT&T subsidy before the divestiture. Therefore you will
pay more, but you will be told that you are now in fact paying the
total cost of providing service to your home. AT&T's rate for long
distance CALLS should go down drastically. This will in fact benefit
heavy users of the network, while taxing light users for the liability
of supporting their phone needs (however minimal and remote they are).
--JSol]
------------------------------
Date: 7 Apr 83 14:31 EST (Thursday)
From: clark.wbst@PARC-MAXC.ARPA
Subject: Re: TELECOM Digest V3 #22
Businesses in competition with AT&T convinced the public that AT&T was
evil and that they should be broken up. The public got what they
asked for. They only clear winners are AT&T and the businesses
competing with them - The same 'Big Business' the public thought they
were striking down. The only clear loser is the public at large, and
anyone who has to use the phone system to communicate.
--Ray
------------------------------
End of TELECOM Digest
**********************
-------