TELECOM@Usc-Eclb (06/02/82)
TELECOM AM Digest Wednesday, 2 June 1982 Volume 2 : Issue 69
Today's Topics:
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: 29 May 1982 1904-PDT
From: Hon Wah Chin <HWC at S1-A>
Has anyone seen McNamara's new edition on DataCom?
Should I upgrade from the first edition?
[I am confused --JSol]
------------------------------
Date: 30 May 1982 02:41 edt
From: Frankston.SoftArts at MIT-MULTICS
Subject: Unnatural monopolies and the good 'ole days
Reply-To: Frankston at MIT-MULTICS (Bob Frankston)
Original-date: 29 MAY 1982 13:21:20
Let me start by warning you that this is a flame generated by the loss
of a dear friend -- the responsive phone company -- at least New
England Telephone.
The current problem stems from my attempts to have a D1 conditioned
leased line from Cambridge (ESS) to Newton (Antique) Massachusetts.
The line itself took about three months to install after initial
delivery date because of the game that the installers, the line people
and the business office play. It is called "how much can we
serialize". If the line people claim to have found a pair it is
possible to then schedule the installers to see if the pair works. A
few weeks later later when the installation people find the pair is
bad it is now time to schedule the line people to find another line.
The key to keeping this game open is to never ever anticipate and
never let any two groups work together to simply solve a problem. The
job of the business office in this game is to act is if they can do no
better a job than the customer can at getting something to happen.
(One trick I picked up along the way is the technique of using a
11-button set that allows conferencing by holding down multiple
buttons. Using DTMF one can place a number of simultaneous calls to a
given number. This overwhelms the person who screens the calls and
the person in hiding tries to help out and you suddently have proof
that the victim is available).
I eventually resolved the problem by calling the President (Mercer) of
NET's office and got a Mr. Anderson (I forgot the first name) who
agreed that there should be some central responsbility. The next day
the line worked! (I also discovered that the the Mass DPU does not
know of any requirement that Telco provide service. They only deal
with billing problems $1.00 or less).
The line worked for a while and then started to flake. I'd call
1-555-1515 to attempt to get the problems fixed, but that appeared to
have no correlation with spontaneous regeneration of service. The
flaking got worse and I even tried swapping modems (Paradyne 9600
medium hauls from Avanti in Rhode Island). Yesterday (Friday 28th) I
got a call back from someone at Ware Street office who said that the
line was noisy. I called Anderson (I think the same one but he did
not remember the previous business) who said that there was no way to
get in touch with someone to just solve the problems. 1-555-1515 is
the sole from of access. (He effectively agreed that calling the
business office was a waste of time).
So here I sit having heard third hand from the repair people that
there is a bad carrier on the Brent Street exchange that might
sometime be fixed.
What are my options:
1. Giving up and learn that one does not fight the
phone company.
2. Continue to call repair and explain to a new person
that 68FDDA50731 is not a phone number but to look under
491-2100 instead.
3. Find out who is interested in competing with Telco.
Now that there are standard interconnect protocols it is
not clear why the local loop should be a monopoly. It
would make more sense for a cable company (assuming
competence) to provide the local loop and local exchange
services.
4. Flame idly on Telecom and not expect anything.
5. Convince the consumer advocacy group that I want to buy
a better class of service and get better support for
leased lines.
6. Be heartened by the FCC's action in lifting VHF TV
licenses of channels 5 and 7 in Boston and hope someone
wants to take over the NET physical plant.
Oh well. Back to the frustrations of 1200 bps and remembering the
good old days when I could just speak to engineering and installation.
****************************************************************
I was going to hold off sending this until I calmed down, but I
just called repair to find the current status of my line and
was told that there was no one around in the appropriate
exchanges this weekend and that there was nothing I could do.
Suggestions?
------------------------------
Date: 1 Jun 82 8:24:42-EDT (Tue)
From: Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) <cmoore@BRL>
Subject: Galestown, Md.
[ from Seaford (Del.) Leader, 5-26-1982, pages 1 & 2 ;
I have supplied phone prefixes in brackets ]
Galestown fights phone company
Area residents, some of whom recently fought for almost a year to
preserve their Seaford rural postal service, are now faced with
another battle--this time to retain their Seaford telephone exchange
[302-629].
According to a recent letter received from the Diamond State
Telephone Com- pany, the Delaware Public Service Commission plans to
eliminate four-party telephone service to Delaware residents
effective Oct. 8, 1982, and since these residents live in Maryland,
they cannot have the two-party or private line service being offered
to Delaware residents.
The cost of a Seaford exchange number at the "foreign exchange"
rate of approximately $200 a month prohibits any of these people
from keeping a Seaford line.
Seaford telephones have been in the Galestown area since at least
1919. The Seaford telephone line came in the Galestown area because
area residents could not get a Maryland telephone. Local residents
constructed the original Seaford line into the Galestown area and
maintained it themselves for a long time.
Eliminating the Seaford telephone line in Maryland will cause the
greatest inconvenience and hardship to the residents in the Reliance
area who would have to take a Federalsburg, Md. exchange [301-754].
Federalsburg does not have any toll-free calling point to Delaware,
where most of their business is transacted. This affects almost
one-half of these 29 families currently living in Maryland with
Seaford phones.
Others in the Galestown area will see their telephone bills
nearly double or quadruple, depending on whether or not they currently
have a Sharptown [301-883] number. These people have been told they
can switch to a Delmar, Del. [302-846] exchange for over $30 a month.
Area residents are appealing this decision to Kathleen Collins,
Chief of the Consumer Affairs Division, Common Carrier Bureau, Federal
Communications Commission, 2025 M. Street N.W., Room 6324, Washington,
D.C. and are contact- ing Rep. Roy Dyson, Sen. Paul S. Sarbanes and
Sen. Charles Mathias of Maryland, and Rep. Thomas Evans, Sen. Joseph
Biden, and Sen. William Roth of Delaware to seek their help to get the
FCC to issue an exception to permit these people to retain their
present Seaford telephones.
------------------------------
End of TELECOM Digest
**********************
-------