TELECOM@Usc-Eclb.arpa (03/15/83)
TELECOM AM Digest Thursday, 20 January 1983 Volume 3 : Issue 6
Today's Topics:
More Administrivia
Local Measured Service (LMS)
555-xxxx
Measured Service (2 Msgs)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: 19 Jan 1983 1938-PST
From: The Moderator <JSol@USC-ECLC>
Subject: More administrivia
Mail system development continues, as you are well aware I'm sure.
There are at least as many new bugs cropping up as there are fixes
made daily. No end seems in sight for this torture(!)
I've been fortunate that our mail system is as robust as it has been.
It is getting better every day. This issue is yet another guinea pig
tester for the mail system I am about to install on our system. Wish
me luck!
Most of this digest pertains to the current issue of Measured Local
Telephone service. I would like to hear aired various points of view
on the issues surrounding Measured Service.
Cheers,
--JSol
------------------------------
Date: 17 January 1983 13:23 est
From: LSchwarz.Activate at RESTON
Subject: Local Measured Service (LMS)
cc: LSchwarz.Activate at RESTON
[This message was originally sent to TELECOM, but was incomplete.
The complete message is contained here in today's digest. --JSol]
I just joined this mailing list last month and have reviewed the
previous "archived" issues since its origin. I am involved with a
committee to suggest the rate structure alternatives to the Local
Telephone CO.
Later this Spring the local teleco will propose the new LMS request.
The request will include four basic factors in determining the
telephone rate for local telephone customers (both residential and
business). They are:
1. Distance - the rate will be based on the distance between two
central switching stations regardless of what
boundaries.
2. Frequency- the rate will be based on number of calls made per
month. The higher number the costlier will it be.
3. Time of Day - the rate will be higher at peak hours and for
peak users.
4. Duration - the rate will be based on time the phone is connected.
The higher the duration the costlier will it be.
In conclusion, the committee has expressed five negative aspects which
may be resulted from the initiation of LMS as:
1. Consumer confusion be created by the complexity of four factors.
2. Uncertainity to their monthly bill's figures.
3. Increased customer anxiety
4. Discouragement of phone use by user-sensitive pricing as well as
impacts on cohesiveness of volunteer community organizations
5. Differential negative impacts of duration charges on speech and
hearing impaired persons.
Two Alternatives to LMS are suggested as follows: 1. Establishment of
a basic access service consisting of dial tone for incoming calls and
minimum number of "free" outgoing calls in addition to flat-rate
service; 2. Use of technology to separate voice from data
communications.
We have noted that utilization of a "life line" service with the
reasonably high message unit charges once the initial allowance has
been exceeded, as an adjunt to present flat-rate service, would
satisfy the "universal service" objective, and avoid most of the
complexity, uncertainity, anxiety, and disabled persons' concerns. It
would not however, address the potentially high cost of regular
service to most customers, the desirability of placing increased
networks capacity costs on those whose increased(computer) use
occassioned them, or the encouragement of more efficient telephone
use. It is emphasized that under any rate design including present
rates or LMS, such a basic "lifeline" service should be offered.
Also, the recommendations are made as follows:
1. Distance:
Due to the uncertainity of the distances between the parties to be
called, the variability of the actual path taken by the call, the
complexity added by distance in enabling the customer to control or
project his phone bill, the difficulity of drawing, simple, fair and
relevant distance boundaries, and the objective of encouraging the
wides economical communication within the metropolitan area outweigh
any benefit to the telephone co from improsing a distance element.
The suggestion is the use of a flat monthly area access charge.
2. Frequency:
In the form of a per-call set-up charge, the incremental cost of
set-up is relatively low. But a per-call charge (no matter how high)
does not address the basic capacity problem by increased computer use.
In short, it is neither cost related, nor productive of mere effective
phone use. More important is the potentially negative impact of any
substantial per-call charge (probably 5 cents per call) on volunteer
community organizations. The suggestion is the imposition of
substantial set-up charge during the peak period as will be explained
under "Time of Day" below.
3. Duration:
Duration appears the most important element to both local telephone
company and the public. A per-minute charge produces a high level of
anxiety in consumers; reflectedd in "clock watching" concern over the
uncontrollable actions of others such as parties wanting to continue
conversations, family members, and being "put on hold" and fear of
"surprises" in the bill at the end of the month. To reduce the
potential anxiety in personal and business communications, the
suggestion is that duration be measured not on a per-minute basis, but
on the basis of the time interval used in most (not average) cases
comfortably to complete the type of call in question. That interval
or duration could be determined by statistical studies of actual
experience or consumer preference. For example, 10 minute interval
for daytime (mostly business-related) calls and a 30 minute interval
for evening (personal) calls. In addition to discourage "tying up the
system" with long calls characteristic of most data transmission, the
suggestion was made that each succeeding interval be priced higher
than the previous one. Also, in order to alleviate the expenses to
callers of being "put on hold" business , the idea of offering
businesses a local "toll free call-in" service when LMS is implemented
is endorsed.
Time of Day:
The most potentially powerful element in the LMS design is "time of
day". When properly designed, a rate structure would encourage more
efficient use of network capacity, give customers greater control over
phone bills, and reduce the repressive impact which LMS might
otherwise have on communications by volunteer groups and individuals.
In order for peak-load pricing to work effectively, those suggestions
were made: 1) The off-peak period must be long enough and convenient
enough for customers to use it rather than the peak; 2) the incentive
differene between peak and off-peak must be great enough to encourage
a shift to off-peak use, but not so great as to create a new "peak";
and 3) the peak rates must be high enough to cover capacity costs but
not so high to discourage use to the point of threatening revenue
requirements. For the sake of growth of the teleco, three periods
were suggested: a day time peak 9AM - 5 PM, an off-peak 7PM - 7 AM,
and to prevent "spillover", an intermediate period 7 - 9 AM and 5 - 7
PM. The ideas are still continuing to see that placement of personal
calls be encouraged during non-business hours.
Conclusion on above-mentioned suggestions:
We are aware of various ulilities such as electricity, gas, water,
sewer, and also, the postages. All are based on actual use in number
of units where unit can be kilowatt, cubic feet, gallons, ounces, etc.
So the telephone company is geared to change to such factors so it
will earn actual revenues rather than the universal theory (the
average cost spreaded to every one regardless of distance, time,
frequency, and duration).
Any comment or suggestion is welcome. Also, any of you, readers, have
any better issue to comment about your local telephone company?
<LJ>
(Reply to: LSchwarz.Activate@USGS1-MULTICS)
------------------------------
Date: 17 Jan 1983 1739-EST
From: John R. Covert <RSX-DEV at DEC-MARLBORO>
Subject: 555-xxxx
For about four years now, 555 has been translated so that only 121x
goes to directory assistance. Massachusetss has been using 555-1611
for repair service for three years.
The use of 800 555-5000 for "Let's talk" is pretty much nationwide.
The destination depends on the operating company in your area.
------------------------------
Date: Mon 17 Jan 83 08:37:35-PST
From: Jim Celoni S.J. <CSL.JLH.Celoni@SU-SCORE.ARPA>
Subject: Re: Unlisted numbers [v. 3 #4]
An old alternative to an unlisted number (here non-published "service"
is $0.30/mo) is to list your number under your dog's name. You can
hang up when greeted with "Hello, Mr. Prince." (He also gets the
bills.)
If you don't mind being in the phone book but want to reduce the
amount of junk mail you get, you can ask not to be included in street
address directories (our last bill had a postcard to return to do
that), or just list your name with no address. Both are free.
+j
------------------------------
Date: 19 Jan 1983 10:25 EST
From: clark.wbst at PARC-MAXC
Subject: Local Measured Services (LMS)
cc: LSchwarz.Activate at RESTON
On the subject of charging for local service based on the distance
between to central switching stations...
While it is clearly true that it costs more to connect a call BETWEEN
switches than WITHIN one, the distance between phones does not
directly correpond to the distance between their switches. The
extreme case is where two people live next door to each other, yet are
on different switching stations...
The phone company decided where to put the switching stations and who
to hook to which. The consumer should not be penalized by being
forced to pay for the structure of the phone companies internal
switching. He should pay for the service he gets. Charge should be
based on the distance between phones. The user did not tell the phone
company how to set it up ! That was their decision, they should now
have to live with it.
--Ray
[A counter proposal to this is that you should not get a break just
because you are switched off the same physical ESS machine as the
phone you want to call. I may live in the area too but on another
machine. Resource consumption notwithstanding, it will get even *more*
complicated to deal with! --JSol]
------------------------------
Date: 19 Jan 1983 1949-PST
From: Jon Solomon <JSol@USC-ECLC>
Subject: Measured Service - Caveat
While it is clear to me that "Computer users" are being made the
"enemies" in this case, it is clear that the people who will hurt the
most from this will be the person who doesn't read their Telephone
company inserts describing the changes. I was in the "residence
service center" of GTE in Santa Monica getting a phone for a friend,
and I was not surprised to find that the majority of the people who
were in the business office were trying to figure out why their phone
bills had just grown 10 times in size! There was one person with
"Extended service" to an area, who hadn't noticed that his "extended
service" was usage sensitive, and who had suddenly gotten himself a
bill of over $300 just in calls to that area alone! I'm sure most of
us computer users will simply stop using the phone for computer use
BEFORE it becomes too expensive, right?
------------------------------
End of TELECOM Digest
**********************
-------TELECOM@Usc-Eclb.arpa (03/15/83)
TELECOM AM Digest Thursday, 20 January 1983 Volume 3 : Issue 6
Today's Topics:
More Administrivia
Local Measured Service (LMS)
555-xxxx
Measured Service (2 Msgs)
[This is copy 4... Sorry people... --JSol]
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: 19 Jan 1983 1938-PST
From: The Moderator <JSol@USC-ECLC>
Subject: More administrivia
Mail system development continues, as you are well aware I'm sure.
There are at least as many new bugs cropping up as there are fixes
made daily. No end seems in sight for this torture(!)
I've been fortunate that our mail system is as robust as it has been.
It is getting better every day. This issue is yet another guinea pig
tester for the mail system I am about to install on our system. Wish
me luck!
Most of this digest pertains to the current issue of Measured Local
Telephone service. I would like to hear aired various points of view
on the issues surrounding Measured Service.
Cheers,
--JSol
------------------------------
Date: 17 January 1983 13:23 est
From: LSchwarz.Activate at RESTON
Subject: Local Measured Service (LMS)
cc: LSchwarz.Activate at RESTON
[This message was originally sent to TELECOM, but was incomplete.
The complete message is contained here in today's digest. --JSol]
I just joined this mailing list last month and have reviewed the
previous "archived" issues since its origin. I am involved with a
committee to suggest the rate structure alternatives to the Local
Telephone CO.
Later this Spring the local teleco will propose the new LMS request.
The request will include four basic factors in determining the
telephone rate for local telephone customers (both residential and
business). They are:
1. Distance - the rate will be based on the distance between two
central switching stations regardless of what
boundaries.
2. Frequency- the rate will be based on number of calls made per
month. The higher number the costlier will it be.
3. Time of Day - the rate will be higher at peak hours and for
peak users.
4. Duration - the rate will be based on time the phone is connected.
The higher the duration the costlier will it be.
In conclusion, the committee has expressed five negative aspects which
may be resulted from the initiation of LMS as:
1. Consumer confusion be created by the complexity of four factors.
2. Uncertainity to their monthly bill's figures.
3. Increased customer anxiety
4. Discouragement of phone use by user-sensitive pricing as well as
impacts on cohesiveness of volunteer community organizations
5. Differential negative impacts of duration charges on speech and
hearing impaired persons.
Two Alternatives to LMS are suggested as follows: 1. Establishment of
a basic access service consisting of dial tone for incoming calls and
minimum number of "free" outgoing calls in addition to flat-rate
service; 2. Use of technology to separate voice from data
communications.
We have noted that utilization of a "life line" service with the
reasonably high message unit charges once the initial allowance has
been exceeded, as an adjunt to present flat-rate service, would
satisfy the "universal service" objective, and avoid most of the
complexity, uncertainity, anxiety, and disabled persons' concerns. It
would not however, address the potentially high cost of regular
service to most customers, the desirability of placing increased
networks capacity costs on those whose increased(computer) use
occassioned them, or the encouragement of more efficient telephone
use. It is emphasized that under any rate design including present
rates or LMS, such a basic "lifeline" service should be offered.
Also, the recommendations are made as follows:
1. Distance:
Due to the uncertainity of the distances between the parties to be
called, the variability of the actual path taken by the call, the
complexity added by distance in enabling the customer to control or
project his phone bill, the difficulity of drawing, simple, fair and
relevant distance boundaries, and the objective of encouraging the
wides economical communication within the metropolitan area outweigh
any benefit to the telephone co from improsing a distance element.
The suggestion is the use of a flat monthly area access charge.
2. Frequency:
In the form of a per-call set-up charge, the incremental cost of
set-up is relatively low. But a per-call charge (no matter how high)
does not address the basic capacity problem by increased computer use.
In short, it is neither cost related, nor productive of mere effective
phone use. More important is the potentially negative impact of any
substantial per-call charge (probably 5 cents per call) on volunteer
community organizations. The suggestion is the imposition of
substantial set-up charge during the peak period as will be explained
under "Time of Day" below.
3. Duration:
Duration appears the most important element to both local telephone
company and the public. A per-minute charge produces a high level of
anxiety in consumers; reflectedd in "clock watching" concern over the
uncontrollable actions of others such as parties wanting to continue
conversations, family members, and being "put on hold" and fear of
"surprises" in the bill at the end of the month. To reduce the
potential anxiety in personal and business communications, the
suggestion is that duration be measured not on a per-minute basis, but
on the basis of the time interval used in most (not average) cases
comfortably to complete the type of call in question. That interval
or duration could be determined by statistical studies of actual
experience or consumer preference. For example, 10 minute interval
for daytime (mostly business-related) calls and a 30 minute interval
for evening (personal) calls. In addition to discourage "tying up the
system" with long calls characteristic of most data transmission, the
suggestion was made that each succeeding interval be priced higher
than the previous one. Also, in order to alleviate the expenses to
callers of being "put on hold" business , the idea of offering
businesses a local "toll free call-in" service when LMS is implemented
is endorsed.
Time of Day:
The most potentially powerful element in the LMS design is "time of
day". When properly designed, a rate structure would encourage more
efficient use of network capacity, give customers greater control over
phone bills, and reduce the repressive impact which LMS might
otherwise have on communications by volunteer groups and individuals.
In order for peak-load pricing to work effectively, those suggestions
were made: 1) The off-peak period must be long enough and convenient
enough for customers to use it rather than the peak; 2) the incentive
differene between peak and off-peak must be great enough to encourage
a shift to off-peak use, but not so great as to create a new "peak";
and 3) the peak rates must be high enough to cover capacity costs but
not so high to discourage use to the point of threatening revenue
requirements. For the sake of growth of the teleco, three periods
were suggested: a day time peak 9AM - 5 PM, an off-peak 7PM - 7 AM,
and to prevent "spillover", an intermediate period 7 - 9 AM and 5 - 7
PM. The ideas are still continuing to see that placement of personal
calls be encouraged during non-business hours.
Conclusion on above-mentioned suggestions:
We are aware of various ulilities such as electricity, gas, water,
sewer, and also, the postages. All are based on actual use in number
of units where unit can be kilowatt, cubic feet, gallons, ounces, etc.
So the telephone company is geared to change to such factors so it
will earn actual revenues rather than the universal theory (the
average cost spreaded to every one regardless of distance, time,
frequency, and duration).
Any comment or suggestion is welcome. Also, any of you, readers, have
any better issue to comment about your local telephone company?
<LJ>
(Reply to: LSchwarz.Activate@USGS1-MULTICS)
------------------------------
Date: 17 Jan 1983 1739-EST
From: John R. Covert <RSX-DEV at DEC-MARLBORO>
Subject: 555-xxxx
For about four years now, 555 has been translated so that only 121x
goes to directory assistance. Massachusetss has been using 555-1611
for repair service for three years.
The use of 800 555-5000 for "Let's talk" is pretty much nationwide.
The destination depends on the operating company in your area.
------------------------------
Date: Mon 17 Jan 83 08:37:35-PST
From: Jim Celoni S.J. <CSL.JLH.Celoni@SU-SCORE.ARPA>
Subject: Re: Unlisted numbers [v. 3 #4]
An old alternative to an unlisted number (here non-published "service"
is $0.30/mo) is to list your number under your dog's name. You can
hang up when greeted with "Hello, Mr. Prince." (He also gets the
bills.)
If you don't mind being in the phone book but want to reduce the
amount of junk mail you get, you can ask not to be included in street
address directories (our last bill had a postcard to return to do
that), or just list your name with no address. Both are free.
+j
------------------------------
Date: 19 Jan 1983 10:25 EST
From: clark.wbst at PARC-MAXC
Subject: Local Measured Services (LMS)
cc: LSchwarz.Activate at RESTON
On the subject of charging for local service based on the distance
between to central switching stations...
While it is clearly true that it costs more to connect a call BETWEEN
switches than WITHIN one, the distance between phones does not
directly correpond to the distance between their switches. The
extreme case is where two people live next door to each other, yet are
on different switching stations...
The phone company decided where to put the switching stations and who
to hook to which. The consumer should not be penalized by being
forced to pay for the structure of the phone companies internal
switching. He should pay for the service he gets. Charge should be
based on the distance between phones. The user did not tell the phone
company how to set it up ! That was their decision, they should now
have to live with it.
--Ray
[A counter proposal to this is that you should not get a break just
because you are switched off the same physical ESS machine as the
phone you want to call. I may live in the area too but on another
machine. Resource consumption notwithstanding, it will get even *more*
complicated to deal with! --JSol]
------------------------------
Date: 19 Jan 1983 1949-PST
From: Jon Solomon <JSol@USC-ECLC>
Subject: Measured Service - Caveat
While it is clear to me that "Computer users" are being made the
"enemies" in this case, it is clear that the people who will hurt the
most from this will be the person who doesn't read their Telephone
company inserts describing the changes. I was in the "residence
service center" of GTE in Santa Monica getting a phone for a friend,
and I was not surprised to find that the majority of the people who
were in the business office were trying to figure out why their phone
bills had just grown 10 times in size! There was one person with
"Extended service" to an area, who hadn't noticed that his "extended
service" was usage sensitive, and who had suddenly gotten himself a
bill of over $300 just in calls to that area alone! I'm sure most of
us computer users will simply stop using the phone for computer use
BEFORE it becomes too expensive, right?
------------------------------
End of TELECOM Digest
**********************
-------