Return-Path: Received: by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.7.4/NSCS-1.0S) id JAA07458; Sun, 30 Nov 1997 09:27:03 -0500 (EST) Date: Sun, 30 Nov 1997 09:27:03 -0500 (EST) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <199711301427.JAA07458@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson Subject: TELECOM Digest V17 #334 TELECOM Digest Sun, 30 Nov 97 09:27:00 EST Volume 17 : Issue 334 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Re: The Old Who Pays Cellular Argument, redux. (Alan Boritz) Re: The Old Who Pays Cellular Argument, redux. (Earle Robinson) Re: The Old Who Pays Cellular Argument, redux. (J.F. Mezei) Re: The Old Who Pays Cellular Argument, redux. (Louis Raphael) Re: The Old Who Pays Cellular Argument, redux. (Christopher Zguris) Re: The Old Who Pays Cellular Argument, redux. (Joe J. Harrison) Re: FCC Payphone Surcharge: Revenge of the Liberals (Dave Stott) Re: FCC Payphone Surcharge: Revenge of the Liberals (Tom Trotter) Re: FCC Payphone Surcharge: Revenge of the Liberals (Stanley Cline) Dilbert Gets ISDN (David Richards) TELECOM Digest is an electronic journal devoted mostly but not exclusively to telecommunications topics. It is circulated anywhere there is email, in addition to various telecom forums on a variety of public service systems and networks including Compuserve and America On Line. It is also gatewayed to Usenet where it appears as the moderated newsgroup 'comp.dcom.telecom'. Subscriptions are available to qualified organizations and individual readers. Write and tell us how you qualify: * telecom-request@telecom-digest.org * The Digest is edited, published and compilation-copyrighted by Patrick Townson of Skokie, Illinois USA. You can reach us by postal mail, fax or phone at: Post Office Box 4621 Skokie, IL USA 60076 Phone: 847-727-5427 Fax: 773-539-4630 ** Article submission address: editor@telecom-digest.org ** Our archives are available for your review/research. The URL is: http://telecom-digest.org They can also be accessed using anonymous ftp: ftp hyperarchive.lcs.mit.edu/telecom-archives/archives (or use our mirror site: ftp ftp.epix.net/pub/telecom-archives) A third method is the Telecom Email Information Service: Send a note to archives@telecom-digest.org to receive a help file for using this method or write me and ask for a copy of the help file for the Telecom Archives. ************************************************************************* * TELECOM Digest is partially funded by a grant from the * * International Telecommunication Union (ITU) in Geneva, Switzerland * * under the aegis of its Telecom Information Exchange Services (TIES) * * project. Views expressed herein should not be construed as represent-* * ing views of the ITU. * ************************************************************************* In addition, a gift from Mike Sandman, Chicago's Telecom Expert has enabled me to replace some obsolete computer equipment and enter the 21st century sort of on schedule. His mail order telephone parts/supplies service based in the Chicago area has been widely recognized by Digest readers as a reliable and very inexpensive source of telecom-related equipment. Please request a free catalog today at http://www.sandman.com --------------------------------------------------------------- Finally, the Digest is funded by gifts from generous readers such as yourself who provide funding in amounts deemed appropriate. Your help is important and appreciated. A suggested donation of twenty dollars per year per reader is considered appropriate. See our address above. Please make at least a single donation to cover the cost of processing your name to the mailing list. All opinions expressed herein are deemed to be those of the author. Any organizations listed are for identification purposes only and messages should not be considered any official expression by the organization. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: aboritz@CYBERNEX.NET (Alan Boritz) Subject: Re: The Old Who Pays Cellular Argument, redux. Date: Sat, 29 Nov 1997 13:33:45 -0500 In article , czguris@interport.net (Christopher Zguris) wrote: > Earle Robinson wrote: >> One big reason you see many Americans with both a pager and cell phone >> is because of the ridiculous method used for call charges in the >> states. No one with a cell phone here would bother having a pager, >> too. > I suspect a bigger reason is the pager receives signals just about > anywhere. Cell phones -- at least here in NYC -- have problems inside > buildings, in rural areas, etc. My new PCS does it, my old analog did > it, it's a signal problem and it happens to my friends as well. > However, aside from tunnels (subway and car), my pager always works. I > would never _depend_ on my cell phone for communication. Is your PCS phone TDMA? This seems to be the most common complaint of TDMA cellphone customers with whom I've spoken. In article , hpa@transmeta.com (H. Peter Anvin) wrote: > shadow@krypton.rain.com (Leonard Erickson) wrote in newsgroup > comp.dcom.telecom: > One thing I like about the Pac*Bell PCS phone I have is that they > don't charge for incoming calls which last less than a minute. 60 > seconds is plenty of time to get rid of wrong numbers and > telemarketers (I have gotten the former, and I'm *STILL* getting wrong > numbers for some "Esquio Alvarez" on my land line -- after three > years. It is some form of "OUT OF AREA" scum, but they seem more > argumentative than most telemarketers -- "I know this is the number, > it worked in 1994", so I wonder if it is collection agencies or > scammers. My bet is on the latter.) > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Interesting you mention it. I've had > some woman call my number for three or four years now, on an average > of once or twice a month and ask to speak with 'Cathy'. She does not > understand the phrase 'wrong number' -- apparently has no idea what > it means. I used to be at least a little gracious about it with her > but for the past several months when she calls I've simply just put > the receiver back on the hook without saying anything to her ... A clueless collection agency used to call my last employer's business line looking for someone who may or may not have worked there years ago. We did a good job of tormenting stock brokers and telemarketers there, so finally, after about six months of abuse, the totally frustrated collection agent shouted, "I know she's there, you're keeping me from her!," and we never heard from her again. If the caller for "Esquio Alvarez" won't give you his name, tell the caller that "Esquio" wanted them to know that they can't stand (the caller) and that he specifically asked that they never call again. Substitute a better story if you can think of one. I occasionally get a wrong number on my mobile phone from similarly clueless people trying to reach a restaurant in southern New Jersey (different area code). It was a novelty when it started, but I had to be rude to Dun and Bradstreet, who should have known better. The next time I'll just take their order, be similarly rude, and tell them to buzz off if they don't like it. Dun and Bradstreet may be starting a new file on the restaurant, depending on my mood, if they call again. Maybe I can write another story for Pat. ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 30 Nov 1997 00:19:41 -0500 From: Earle Robinson Subject: The Old Who Pays Cellular Argument, redux. > I suspect that this whole situation developed differently in North > America and Europe because of the distances inside the countries, and > was only later reflected in different numbering. > In North America, because Canada and the USA are large enough to > require significant amounts of internal "long-distance" calling, > mobile phones are considered to be "based" in a particular location, > and are given numbers in the same area code(s) as landlines based in > the same location. Other users call the cellphone number as if it was > a landline in the same location. (It is 7100 km from Saint John's > Newfoundland to Victoria, British Columbia- the Trans-Canada Highway.) > etc. Yes, I'm afraid that the system in the USA is quite old fashioned. Area codes seem to change almost yearly as the telcos try to meet demand for new numbers. It would be simpler if the USA went to eight (or even nine digit) local numbers, and there were a complete overhaul of the long distance system. Adhering to the ITU mandated system, which most other countries in the world do or will doo, would make all this simpler, too. Of course, separate area codes for cellular phones would simplify matters and allow jettisoning of the present ridiculous system of the callee paying for calls, thus encouraging more use of cellular phones, and people wouldn't have to hide their cellular phone numbers as they now do in the states. Mind you, the direct cost of a call between Los Angeles and New York City is insignificantly larger than the cost of a call within Los Angeles or New York City. It isn't that the USA is larger. After all, there are more people in Europe than in the USA. And, if you extend the concept of Europe to include Russia, the geographical area is no less either. -er ------------------------------ From: J.F. Mezei <"[non-spam]jfmezei"@videotron.ca> Subject: Re: The Old Who Pays Cellular Argument, redux. Date: Sun, 30 Nov 1997 01:12:00 -0500 Organization: VTL Reply-To: "[non-spam]jfmezei"@videotron.ca Canada and Australia being much bigger having a lot of long distance calls, your phone is based in your home city. In Australia, mobile phones are in their own area/city code. So, any call to a cell phone is essentially a long distance. Land line caller pays and incoming calls on a mobile are basically free (from what I have read). ------------------------------ From: raphael@willy.cs.mcgill.ca (Louis Raphael) Subject: Re: The Old Who Pays Cellular Argument, redux. Date: Fri, 28 Nov 1997 17:56:35 GMT Organization: McGill University Computing Centre We had a similar problem once, with a person who somehow decided that we *must* know the new phone number of someone they wanted to speak to, must know where they were, etc. Also couldn't understand "wrong number ... this is a new number ..." Hard to tell what goes on in the heads of people like that. Finally, we tried another approach -- "Wait a moment ..." and put the phone on the table. Now, we do the same with telemarketers, too. Also had the case of the old lady (felt somewhat sorry for her) who was *convinced* that she was calling the grocery store and that we didn't want to take her order because we didn't like her, or something of that nature. Again, and again, and again ... eventually, my mother took the order (never filled, of course) ... she never called back. Next step was delivering rotten vegetables at inflated prices, I suppose ... :-) We don't get enough of these calls for them to be seriously annoying -- as of now, they're still a source of mean-spirited amusement. Louis ------------------------------ From: czguris@interport.net (Christopher Zguris) Subject: Re: The Old Who Pays Cellular Argument, redux. Date: Fri, 28 Nov 1997 06:14:25 GMT Reply-To: czguris@interport.net earle robinson wrote: > Here in Paris my GSM works in most buildings, and where it might not, > any incoming calls go into the voice mailbox, which is free. So, why > have a pager? It also works in tunnels, other than the under the Yes, incoming calls go into my voicemail as well, and I get notification on my phone when the phone's in digital mode. However, in NYC, my phone -- on all day -- frequently switches from digital to analog, when it's in analog I lose voicemail alert until it goes digital again. BTW, the same thing happens to a friend, also on AT&T Wireless, and he uses a different brand of phone. For the cell phone, some buildings cause problems, some don't. As I said, rather than deal with this nonsense, trying to figure out _if_ I've got coverage or not, if the voicemail notification is working or not, I'll take the pager. Christopher Zguris, czguris@interport.net http://www.users.interport.net/~czguris ------------------------------ From: Joe.J.Harrison@bra0130.wins.icl.co.uk (Joe J. Harrison) Date: Fri, 28 Nov 1997 10:24:47 +0000 Subject: Re: The Old Who Pays Cellular Argument, redux. Scott Robert Dawson said: [why US has callee-pays and other places don't] > In Europe and other locations, I suspect that the countries are small > enough that potential long-distance charges to mobiles (incurred by > routing calls across the country to mobiles that could be anywhere) > could be 'smoothed out' across all the people calling the mobiles, > without raising the rates for calls to mobiles to > completely-unaffordable levels. > This allowed mobiles to be placed in separate easily-recognized area > codes covering entire countries, with a fixed rate to call them no > matter where they were in the country. (Am I right on this, Europeans? Yes you are right. But unfortunately for your argument the same goes for another tiny country by the name of Australia :-) Joe ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 28 Nov 1997 12:39:10 -0500 From: Dave Stott Subject: Re: FCC Payphone Surcharge: Revenge of the Liberals In Telecom Digest #332, Eli Mantel wrote: > As far as I can tell, a payphone operator can install hundreds of > payphones in a room and hire people to make calls from his payphones > to airlines, hotels, and the many thousands of businesses offering > their services via 800/888 numbers. Heck, why pay people to do it? Get an old 386 PC with a couple of 16 port serial cards (or whatever it would take) and have it dial 1-800 LD access numbers all day long. You wouldn't have to pay anyone minimum wage, and it could run the program all day and all night unattended. Dave Stott ------------------------------ From: Tom Trotter Subject: Re: FCC Payphone Surcharge: Revenge of the Liberals Date: Thu, 27 Nov 1997 16:00:12 -0500 Actually, this far-fetched scenario may have some life. Why couldn't anyone get their phone classified as a "pay" phone (esp. Hotels, but even businesses, etc.) and collect the 30 cents from ANY 8xx calls. In fact, why shouldn't *everyone* collect it? Higher 800 costs, but now every phone service supplier gets paid, not just pay phone companies. People would be friendlier, "Here, use my phone to call your 800 number." More businesses would make courtesy phones available (toll restricted). No special billing arrangements just for COCOTs. To stop the scenario Eli suggests, first, require a connect, and second, change the rates to 25 cents plus 10 cents per minute after 2 minutes. ------------------------------ From: roamer1@pobox.com (Stanley Cline) Subject: Re: FCC Payphone Surcharge: Revenge of the Liberals Date: Sat, 29 Nov 1997 22:26:39 GMT Organization: By area code and prefix (NPA-NXX) Reply-To: roamer1@pobox.com On Wed, 26 Nov 1997 23:28:33 PST, Eli Mantel wrote: > This doublespeak from the FCC is topped only by the ridiculous claim > that there is a dearth of payphones that results from inadequate > payphone operator compensation, or the suggestion that customers in > a mall or an airport will be able to find a cheaper payphone just > around the corner. The latter is just what the FCC has thought will happen -- that payphone owners will try to compete on price of calls/service, as has happened in the long-distance and (soon) local businesses. It *isn't* going to happen, simply because of the competitive environment that payphones live under. Several LECs and COCOT owners have had to *raise* their local coin rates, even if they don't otherwise want to -- in order to compete for or keep LOCATIONS. In other words, a 25c payphone can't pay as much to the location provider as a 35c payphone, so in order to keep the payphone in the desired location, the payphone owner has had to increase rates. Also, from what I understand, some COCOT owners sign "exclusive" contracts with location providers, preventing the location provider for installing competing phones, even if they want to. The money often doesn't flow to the PAYPHONE OWNER -- it flows to the LOCATION OWNER. I know of only one place where "competing" payphones exist other than by accident: Hartsfield Atlanta Airport -- there, BellSouth, two or three COCOT companies, and AT&T all have payphones (only coinless phones in the case of AT&T.) This ideal just isn't going to happen everywhere. It's not just payphones, though ... The same things -- competition for property rights (not customers) and exclusive contracts -- are also issues in the cable business; various apartment owners and condo associations are bringing in "private cable" companies (most of which, aside from RCN in the Northeast and some RBOC/LEC-owned systems, provide far fewer channels and services than traditional local cable companies or mini-dish services) on exclusive contracts which provide "kickbacks" to the property owner, then preventing residents from obtaining alternative cable service (typically stated as "no dishes, and you must obtain cable service from OUR provider") other than by moving. Even in properties where the local franchised cable company still provides service, such as the complex I live in now, there tend to be exclusive agreements between the property owner and the cable company, and the same "no antennas or dishes" rules. Residents in multi-unit properties must then put up with whatever service the cable (whether local or private) system or rabbit ears provide, with no choice of alternatives. (That's not completely true. Some apartment/condo residents have successfully diguised dishes as planters, BBQ grills, etc., set up "temporary" dishes mounted on freestanding tripods, or managed to get them to work inside pointing out windows. Such installs deal with the aesthetic and property-damage concerns of "dishes everywhere" that most property owners share, but some property owners are even trying to stamp out THOSE practices, largely because they don't want to lose the cable-company "kickback" revenue.) Some pro-competitive forces, and unhappy apartment and condo dwellers, are pushing the FCC to ban exclusive contracts and property owners' "no-antenna" rules, but the property owners' groups are screaming that such actions amount to a "taking" of private property. Never mind that property owners currently have strong financial incentives to deny alternatives. Private payphone owners and location owners, by the same token, have financial incentives to deny alternatives (including competitive payphones, or access to other long distance carriers and to 800/888 numbers). Some locations where payphones are installed have even tried to ban use of wireless phones, simply to increase the payphone revenue. Compensating payphone owners for 800/888/10(1x)xxx calls seems to address part of the problem on the surface, but the fact remains that the public will probably see very little benefit (more payphones, lower local call prices, etc.), and much of the payphone industry will remain as sleazy as ever. Simply put: The FCC and Congress need to get a clue. Competition for property rights, instead of customers, enriches property owners at the expense of the general public. It's already been seen in private cable, and now payphones are headed down the same road. The FCC and Congress need to promote competition for CUSTOMERS, not competition for property rights. > There's no rule that says payphones must actually be public phones. > Depending on the state tariffs, you can probably put payphones > anywhere you can put regular phones. To simplify things, payphones > don't even need to be coin phones. They just have to have a way to > pay for non-toll-free calls. > As far as I can tell, a payphone operator can install hundreds of > payphones in a room and hire people to make calls from his payphones Most public service/utility commissions and telcos would be suspicious of a large number of payphone installs to one location (unless that location is itself large.) Stanley Cline somewhere near Atlanta, GA, USA roamer1(at)pobox.com http://scline.home.mindspring.com/ what's up with payphones?.......see http://cocot.home.mindspring.com/ spam not wanted here!....help outlaw spam - see http://www.cauce.org/ [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: They could be as suspicious as they like about the large number of pay phone installations, but is there any law against it? PAT] ------------------------------ From: dr@ripco.com (David Richards) Subject: Dilbert Gets ISDN Date: 29 Nov 1997 19:34:30 GMT Organization: Ripco Internet, Chicago In article , > Also, I know a lot of you follow the 'Dilbert' comic strip in the > papers. I assume you all saw the series of strips this past week > where Dilbert gets his ISDN phone installed, and the goofy character > sent by telco to do the job. Any comments on it? That strip is totally unrealistic -- It took Dilbert only three days to get his ISDN line up and running? Bah Humbug! ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V17 #334 ******************************