TELECOM@Usc-Eclb (06/04/82)
TELECOM AM Digest Friday, 4 June 1982 Volume 2 : Issue 71
Today's Topics:
Galestown, MD - Losing Delaware FEX
Special Billing Comparison - Pacific Telephone
Exclusion Switch - Technical Description Wanted
"Rusty Switch" Scam - Explanation Please?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: 3 June 1982 09:24-EDT
From: Jeffrey Krauss <KRAUSS at MIT-MC>
Subject: Galestown, MD
Sorry, but I don't have any sympathy for the 29 families now living in
Galestown ,Maryland but using Seaford, Delaware local exchange
service. A look at the map shows that Galestown is about three miles
from Sharptown, MD, where they can apparently get local service;
however, Galestown is about ten miles from Seaford.
It sounds like they have been getting some kind of extended area local
service that happened to cross a state line. If so, Section 221(b) of
the Communications Act specifically gives jurisdiction to the states
(not the FCC) because local exchange service is involved. On the
other hand, the FCC may have jurisdiction under Section 214, which
prohibits a discontinuance, reduction or impairment of interstate
service without first getting a certificate of public convenience and
necessity from the FCC. Usually, a mere price increase does not
constitute a "discontinuance, reduction or impairment of service."
The fact is that these people have been subsidized by someone over the
past years, and they want to retain that subsidy. Apparently they
have received subsidies even greater than the alleged subsidies that
rural subscribers generally have received. Too bad.
---Jeff Krauss---
[I agree, but only if they really run foreign exchange lines from
Delaware into the customer's home. In California we have Pseudo-FEX
exchanges, which are run just like local telephone lines into your
home or business and have a different rate area. I couldn't see
charging $400/month/person for *that*. --JSol]
------------------------------
Date: 2 June 1982 1937-PDT (Wednesday)
From: lauren at UCLA-Security (Lauren Weinstein)
Subject: PacTel billing procedures
Here's how Pacific Telephone does it:
There are four residence account groups defined:
Group 1
(less than 13 months service or unverifiable previous service)
If any delinquent amounts equal or exceed 1/2 of your average
monthly bill, a temporary disconnection notice will be mailed.
Group 2
(13-24 months service)
If any delinquent amounts equal or exceed your average monthly bill, a
temporary disconnection notice will be mailed.
Group 3
(over 2 years service)
If any delinquent amount equals or exceeds twice your average
monthly bill, a temporary disconnection notice will be mailed.
Group 4
(service of more than 12 months that has been temporarily or
completely disconnected for non-payment within the last 12 months, or
any unpaid residence final bill over 45 days old)
If any delinquent amount equals or exceeds 1/2 of your average monthly
bill, a temporary disconnection notice will be mailed.
---
If your bill is unpaid on the "due date" and you meet one of the above
disconnection criteria:
The notice will be sent with your next regular bill if you are in
account groups 2 or 3.
The notice will be sent separately one day after the due date if you
are in account groups 1 or 4.
---
SPECIAL BILLS
If your account is in groups 1 or 4 and your long distance charges
exceed $150 in less than a full billing period, you may be sent a
special bill requesting payment of these charges in advance of your
regular billing. If subsequently your long distance charges exceed
$400, you may receive another special bill. If your account is in
groups 2 or 3, you may receive a special bill when your long distance
charges exceed $400 in a full billing period. Payment is due seven
business days from the date these special bills are mailed.
--Lauren--
------------------------------
Date: 3 June 1982 11:39-EDT
From: Thomas L. Davenport <TLD at MIT-MC>
Subject: Exclusion Switch
I'm getting a direct-connect modem which I am told requires a phone
with an "exclusion switch." Does Telco mean by this a phone with a
switchhook that can be lifted to cut out the handset? If so, it
should be easy enough to hook up a functional replacement. Can
anybody give me more information on this? Thanks!
-Tom-
------------------------------
Date: 3 Jun 1982 1150-PDT
From: Paul Martin <PMARTIN at SRI-AI>
I'm intrigued by the inTERstate vs. inTRAstate phone line comment
which referred to the "rusty switch" scam. What is it?
...Paul
------------------------------
End of TELECOM Digest
**********************
-------