Return-Path: Received: by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.7.4/NSCS-1.0S) id BAA11962; Thu, 2 Apr 1998 01:37:07 -0500 (EST) Date: Thu, 2 Apr 1998 01:37:07 -0500 (EST) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <199804020637.BAA11962@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson Subject: TELECOM Digest V18 #49 TELECOM Digest Thu, 2 Apr 98 01:37:00 EST Volume 18 : Issue 49 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Getting Nickel-and-Dimed (Monty Solomon) FCC Issues "Vanity Decision" in Toll-Free (Judith Oppenheimer) Senator Leahy to Offer Bill Targeting Telco Pay Phone Windfalls (N. Allen) Bell Atlantic to Spend $1.5-Billion on Data Networking (oldbear@arctos.com) LEC Billing for Non-Communications Charges (Bruce Wilson) Bell Atlantic Providence Switch Failure (Tony Pelliccio) 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. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Tue, 31 Mar 1998 03:34:14 -0500 From: Monty Solomon Subject: Getting Nickel-and-Dimed http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/WPlate/1998-03/30/031l-033098-idx.html Getting Nickel-and-Dimed Technology Is About Change -- or Lack Thereof -- at Pay Phones By Brian Krebs Washington Post Staff Writer Monday, March 30, 1998; Page F18 You may well have had the experience: You've got two quarters and you need to make a call from a pay phone. So, in go both quarters. You've paid the new, higher rate of 35 cents. And you've overpaid by 15 cents because pay phones don't give change. With a majority of the country's 2.1 million pay phones now charging 35 cents for a local call, or soon to do so, that withheld change adds up, giving companies a huge windfall. Let's assume that 75 percent of the phones out there are charging 35 cents -- no one knows what the precise figure is. If just one person a day overpays 15 cents at each of the phones, companies would get more than $230,000 extra a day, or about $7 million a month. The windfall is an indirect result of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, which gave phone companies freedom from many price regulations in the name of increased competition. The law has come under fire lately from numerous consumer groups that claim it has strengthened phone companies at the expense of the consumer. Last October, when the FCC decided to "deregulate and detariff" local pay phone rates across the country, some industry analysts argued that it might result in rate competition, with the price of a local call varying from one phone to the next. Less than three months later, however, pay phone rates have generally risen in lockstep in local regions. Gene Kimmelman, executive director of the Consumers Union, said the FCC got it all wrong. "There is no competition at the consumer level," he said. "When was the last time you saw two pay phones at one location that were each owned by a different company or that charged a different price? It just doesn't happen." The only competition, said Kimmelman, is for who pays the most commission to the establishment where the phone is installed. And this competition helps drives up the price of a local call. If one pay phone company raises its rates in order to pay higher commissions, competitors are under pressure to do so as well, or risk losing contracts to put pay phones in restaurants, malls, airports and convenience stores. Prior to deregulation, most states maintained a cap on the price of a local pay phone call. But industry officials have for years argued that the common 25-cent price was not enough to cover the costs of providing basic pay phone service and maintenance. They point out too that in the past decade, pay phone companies have lost revenues to cellular phones, calling cards and various collect-call campaigns. Nevertheless, for consumers in Vermont, the price increase to 35 cents from 10 cents means that a local call today costs more than three times what they used to pay. Adding insult to injury, say Vermont natives like Democratic Sen. Patrick Leahy, is that for those who don't have exact change, the 15 cents they may forfeit is more than the call itself cost just two months ago. Leahy and the Consumer's Union, which publishes Consumer Report, have drafted legislation that seeks to force pay phone providers to return this extra amount to the consumer, either by mandating the installation of change-making devices or through a credit to the customer's phone bill. The plan would exclude all pay phones that still charge 25 cents or less. The legislation is expected to be marked up in committee this week. A third option would entail a direct donation by phone companies to the Universal Access Fund, a $2.25 billion federal fund designed to ensure that all households can have affordable local phone service. But a law mandating change-making devices could backfire on the consumer, says Consumer's Union's Kimmelman, who said the legislation should instead focus on making the FCC revisit the issue of deregulation. "We'd like to avoid a situation in which the pay phone companies increase the price of a call, then turn around and say, 'The federal government made me do it,' " said Kimmelman. Vincent Sandusky, president of the American Public Communications Council, a trade group for smaller pay phone providers, said retrofitting pay phones with change-making devices could be prohibitively costly. Sandusky cited a letter to the Georgia Public Service Commission from BellSouth President James Hawkins, putting the cost of such an endeavor at upward of $100 million for the country as a whole. John Everett, director of public products at Bell Atlantic Corp., which provides local phone service in the Washington area, pointed out that pay phones have never given change -- and most people don't expect them to. He added that while none of Bell Atlantic's 400,000 pay phones from the District to Maine have notices stating they do not give change, the company is considering giving them such signs. So far the Washington metropolitan area has had no organized consumer revolt of the type that is taking place in Vermont. Faced with such indifference, it's conceivable that phone companies may choose to raise the price of a pay phone call to 50 cents. "My sense is that this won't happen," said Ed Baron, an aide to Sen. Leahy, adding that he is confident consumers will take up the issue. "We think one way or the other, the general public will get tired of being nickle-and-dimed by the phone companies, and we'll start to see significant consumer unrest." Brian Krebs's e-mail address is krebsb@washpost.com Principles of Technorealism Here are some of the tenets of technorealism as they appear at http://www.technorealism.org 1. Technologies are not neutral. 2. The Internet is revolutionary but not Utopian. 3. Government has an important role to play on the electronic frontier. 4. Information is not knowledge. 5. Wiring the schools will not save them. 6. Information wants to be protected. 7. The public owns the airways; the public should benefit from their use. 8. Understanding technology should be an essential component of global citizenship. ----------------------------- [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: I have a couple complaints about the complaint given: First, there are locations where competing pay phones are nearby. When I had the two COCOTS put in at the Skokie Bus Station I did not have the three Ameritech payphones at the other end of the waiting area removed. *They* charge 35 cents per call. *Mine* charge 25 cents per call. I get most of the business these days as a result. Is my situation unique? Second, there are a lot of coin operated devices which do not give change, and there are other services which do not provide change either. When was the last time you rode a local bus in your commun- ity and had the driver offer to make change? All the busses around here plainly say by the door 'exact change only', and when the fare is $1.80 which includes a transfer, you can bet a lot of folks just put two one dollar bills in the money box. Payphones at least will speak up and say 'you have 15 cents credit toward overtime' or words to that effect so you can get your money's worth. Payphones also have a lot of people who walk away owing money at the end of call as well, so I think it washes out. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 31 Mar 1998 20:50:13 -0500 From: Judith Oppenheimer Reply-To: joppenheimer@icbtollfree.com Organization: ICB TOLL FREE NEWS. 15 Day FREE Trial: http://icbtollfree.com Subject: FCC Issues "Vanity Decision" in Toll-Free Washington, DC April 1, 1998 (ICB TOLL FREE NEWS) True to form, the FCC has issued its latest dysfunctional Order in CC Docket No. 95-155, FCC ADOPTS DECISION ON ASSIGNMENT OF TOLL FREE VANITY NUMBERS March 31, 1998, Report No. CC-98-7. 800 subscribers with 888 set-asides get replication. But in 877, assigning vanity numbers on a first-come, first-served basis ensures fair allocation of numbers by granting no class of subscribers a preference. Despite overwhelming evidence presented to the FCC that large RespOrgs make up a class of subscribers with a preference over small RespOrgs; and that all RespOrgs make up a class of subscribers with preference over non-RespOrg subscribers, this Order insists that its current system constitutes first-come, first-serve, and determines that "vanity numbers in the new 877 toll free code and future toll free codes shall be assigned on this first-come, first-serve basis as each code is deployed." The Commission asserts repeatedly that assigning vanity numbers in 877 and future toll free codes on a first-come, first-serve basis will ensure fair allocation of numbers by granting no class of subscribers a preference... In addition a first-come, first-served process ensures an orderly allocation of toll free numbers because it avoids disputes among subscribers over who is entitled to a particular number. However, subscribers of certain vanity numbers in the 800 toll free code are granted the right of first refusal for a limited amount of corresponding vanity numbers in the 888 code that were set aside pending the Commission's decision. This, the Commission said, will also further its goals of promoting the efficient, fair and orderly allocation of toll free numbers. Explaining this discrepancy, the Commission says that although 888 numbers are now in widespread use, [it is] concerned that consumers are still adjusting to the environment of multiple toll free codes. As a result, the problems of customer confusion, misdialing, and new toll free subscribers benefiting from the marketing efforts of 800 subscribers with corresponding vanity numbers are likely to be most serious in the case of the first post-800 toll free code. Which, of course, won't be a problem in 877. Right. The Commission declined to impose a fee in connection with the right of first refusal for the set aside 888 numbers. Set aside 888 vanity numbers will be available for assignment ninety days after 877 is deployed. If the subscriber to the corresponding 800 vanity number refrains from subscribing to the set aside 888 number, the 888 number will be made available on a first-come, first-serve basis. It is unclear if the Order specifies if, or how, subscribers with 888 numbers in set-aside are to be notified by their RespOrgs of this ninety day window. The Order notes 877 is scheduled to be introduced on April 5, 1998. And finally, attached to the Order is a rudimentary Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis, giving the Commission a carefully constructed appearance of compliance with the Small Business Administration. Judith Oppenheimer, Publisher ICB TOLL FREE NEWS The Daily News Service of the Toll Free Industry 15-day, no-obligation FREE trial: http://icbtollfree.com [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Judith, it seems to me the FCC reached a reasonable compromise on this. Granted, the introduction of 888 was bound to lead to some confusion, and the FCC was right in having the set-asides for major 800 customers to avoid the hassles we discussed here many times. But there has to be a line drawn somewhere, otherwise if every single toll-free code being introduced from now into the future had a large quantity of numbers set-aside on the premise that someone, somewhere was likely to abuse the original 800 subscriber's rights, or that the public would be confused, then we never would gain any ground on stopping the proliferation of toll-free codes. Each one would open up already half full due to set-asides. Had the FCC granted your wish with 877, would you want them to do it again when 866 comes around, probably in the next year or two at the pace we are going now? If anything, maybe they could allow the holds in place on certain 888 numbers to remain another year or so, in the event some people still cannot understand the difference between it and 800, but it has to end sometime. IMO, 888 'looks enough like' 800 that some confusion might still be present -- people thinking the 888 was a typographical error and that 800 was intended -- but 877 simply looks and feels totally different. The rate of dialing errors will be much less, and the 'mischief factor' is going to be much less also. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 31 Mar 1998 22:14:54 -0500 From: Nigel Allen Organization: 8 Silver Ave., Toronto ON M6R 1X8, Canada Subject: Senator Leahy to Offer Bill Targeting Telco Pay Phone Windfalls Here is a press release from U.S. Senator Patrick Leahy, a Democrat from Vermont, from his web site at http://www.senate.gov/~leahy/news.htm Media can contact David Carle of Sen. Leahy's office at 202-224-3693. Press Release March 30, 1998 Leahy To Offer Bill Targeting Telcos Pay Phone Windfalls Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., later this week will introduce a bill targeting windfalls collected by pay phone firms whose telephones do not offer change to their customers. Public phones rarely, if ever, offer change, and there are 2,100,000 pay phones nationwide, gathering millions of dollars each month for the industry in unearned windfalls. The problem has worsened since the Federal Communications Commission's recent deregulation of pay phone charges, when many firms promptly raised their rates -- typically, from a quarter to 35 cents -- without offering change to customers stuck with the wrong coins. The U.S. Supreme Court today (March 30) let stand a court decision upholding that FCC preemption of states' authority to influence public phone rates. Following is a summary of "The Consumer Pay Phone Protection Act of 1998," sponsored by Leahy: CASH CHANGE OR CREDIT TO STATES: The bill requires that pay phone companies which charge more than 25 cents for local phone calls provide either cash change or other alternatives to consumers, or credits to states equal to the value of the unpaid change, for use by states for telecommunications activities that promote the public interest, such as safety, health, emergency services, education, or in nursing homes. PROMOTING THE PUBLIC INTEREST: The bill directs that these sums not provided to consumers be conveyed to the states where the pay phones are located. Such funds would go to support public interest pay phones in remote locations where they might be needed for emergency calls, in underserved areas, or in areas where they would promote public safety. The funds could be used to improve phone access in poorly served areas. ONE-YEAR IMPLEMENTATION: The bill directs the FCC, within one year of the bill's enactment, to issue proposed rules that apply to pay phone providers that charge more than 25 cents for local pay phone calls. Companies would have to provide for cash change or automatically credit the appropriate public service agency in the respective states to account for instances in which change is not provided at the pay phone. NO INCREASES IN CHARGES OR DECREASE IN SERVICE: The bill requires that the FCC ensure that pay phone providers do not pass any costs of compliance with this bill on to consumers and that pay phone providers in no way reduce or limit service based on this anti-windfall requirement. CONSUMER NOTICE: The bill requires that small stickers or other notice be posted on pay phones for the purpose of advising consumers when cash change will not be provided. RECONSIDER RULES: The bill directs the FCC to reconsider its rules under which the FCC removed authority from states to regulate the charge for local calls made over pay phones. The FCC would reexamine the need for states to have greater decision making roles where local competition between pay phone providers is not present. (end of press release) Note from NDA: As a Canadian who sometimes visits the U.S., I think this bill is a step in the right direction, although I think that pay phone rates should be regulated they way they traditionally were. Market forces don't work terribly well when it comes to pay phone pricing. Using a stored-valued card like Bell Canada's Quickchange card is a good way to avoid having to carry around a lot of charge for local phone calls from pay phones, although not all Bell Canada payphones can read the Quickchange card. Senator Leahy's web site is worth visiting. He has some interesting Internet material there as well. Nigel Allen ndallen@interlog.com http://www.ndallen.com/ [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: I would suggest that Senator Leahy should also make it a federal offense to walk away from a payphone owing money, or for otherwise defrauding the telco which has the payphone. He might also want to require public transit agencies to give change or credit the overages to some type of fund. Newspaper vending boxes on sidewalks do not give change either, Senator, and there are people around who have to put in five or ten cents extra to get their paper. At least the telco allows the overage to be used on the call being made when overtime begins. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 31 Mar 1998 23:13:39 -0500 From: The Old Bear Subject: Bell Atlantic to Spend $1.5-billion on Data Networking The following story excerpted from {The Wall Street Journal} for Tuesday, March 31, 1998: Bell Atlantic to Spend $1.5 Billion To Prepare Its Network for Data by Stephanie N. Mehta, Staff Reporter NEW YORK -- Bell Atlantic Corp., racing to prepare its local telephone network for increasingly demanding data applications, said it plans to spend $1.5 billion over five years on upgrading and expanding its existing systems. The Baby Bell said it awarded equipment, software and hardware contracts to five vendors. "I would characterize this as an aggressive extension of the Bell Atlantic network," said Lawrence T. Babbio, president and chief executive officer of the Bell's Network Group. Bell Atlantic, like other carriers, is facing growing data- transmission demands as services such as the Internet and telecommuting become commonplace. "The market was moving in this direction," Mr. Babbio said. "The demand for high-speed access from businesses and residents is out there." The company said it awarded Lucent Technologies Inc. a $500 million, five-year contract to provide network-management software, high-speed optical-networking technology and multiplexing technology, which boosts capacity by splitting strands of fiber into multiple channels of light. Ciena Corp. also will provide multiplexing equipment, Bell Atlantic said. Bell Atlantic awarded a $500 million, five-year contract to Fujitsu Network Communications Inc. The unit of Fujitsu Ltd. said it will provide the Baby Bell with transmission equipment. Tellabs Inc. and DSC Communications Corp. won contracts to provide so-called cross-connect systems that help to route voice and data traffic through different types of network equipment. Terms of those contracts weren't disclosed. Bell Atlantic told analysts in February that it planned to boost its capital spending on data networks. "Everyone in the industry is going to have to do this, so it is no big surprise," said Tim Horan, a telecommunications analyst with BancAmerica Robertson Stephens. The Bell's package of contracts doesn't cover a proposed Internet backbone that the company is seeking permission from federal regulators to build. In New York Stock Exchange composite trading Monday, Bell Atlantic rose 43.75 cents to $101.4375. Bell Atlantic and the other Bell operating companies also received a boost Monday from a Supreme Court decision that upheld federal deregulation of the pay-telephone industry, one of the Bells' lines of business. Copyright 1998 Dow Jones & Company, Inc. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 1 Apr 1998 15:55:59 -0500 From: blw1540@aol.com (BLW1540) Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com Subject: LEC Billing for Non-Communications Charges For the benefit of those who want to take preventive action with respect to unauthorized charges for non-communications services, etc., which may appear on their local exchange carrier (LEC) bills, here is a list of the billing and collection clearinghouses (which aggregate those charges on behalf of their clients, such as "Psychic Help," and send them on to the LECs), with voice and fax numbers: Billing & Collection Clearinghouse Voice Fax ESBI (Enhanced Service Billing, Inc.) 888-302-3724 210-949-7100 Integretel 800-736-7500 408-362-2791 ITA (international Telemedia Assoc.) 800-866-8889 770-937-0422 NBE (National Billing Exchange) 800-879-4297 407-894-6224 OAN Specialized Products/Services 800-947-5084 818-678-4679 Telecom Operator Svcs. d/b/a "USP&C" 800-449-1058 816-965-2630 Vartec 800-583-0670 888-230-7617 VR$ 900 Billing Services 800-736-7500 408-362-2874 ZPDI (Zero Plus Dialing, Inc.) 888-511-0734 210-949-7464 For the record, fax a signed request to each and every one to have your number(s) added to its blocking database immediately on receipt of your letter and keep both the original and the fax transmission report showing the date and time sent. (The fax numbers above were obtained by voice call requests for a fax number to which a list of numbers to go into its blocking database could be sent, except for ESBI, the fax number for which was obtained from its web site, and USP&C, the fax number for which was obtained from the Iowa Attorney General's office, Consumer Protection Division.) Integretel handles customer service for VR$, but VR$ has its own fax number. In the case of businesses with multiple incoming lines, include the phone number assigned to EACH/EVERY line, NOT just the main listed number, to obtain complete blocking. Call your LEC business office (or look closely at your monthly phone bill) if you don't know what all of those numbers are. Bruce Wilson [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: And of course do not forget to tell your own local telco as well as your long distance carrier to add your number(s) to their 'billed number screening' database. PAT] ------------------------------ From: nospam.tonypo@nospam.ultranet.com (Tony Pelliccio) Subject: Bell Atlantic Providence Switch Failure Date: Wed, 1 Apr 1998 18:12:53 -0500 Organization: The Cesspool On March 31, 1998 Bell Atlantic suffered a complete outage of their switching system in Providence, RI. The outage lasted at least fifteen minutes and affected 90,000 telephone lines. Bell Atlantic is at a complete loss to explain what happened, except that both the main DMS-100 and a backup DMS switch both failed. They say they cannot guarantee that it's not going to happen again. Now for the editorializing: Since Bell Atlantic has taken over what was once Nynex, predicitions of service with an attitude have come true. The bimbo that was on the 6 O'Clock news looked like a deer in the headlights. I will concede that Nynex wasn't the most technically adept RBOC, but we ***NEVER*** suffered an outage of this scale in my memory. It makes me so happy I've decided to switch our business lines to Brooks/Worldcom and taken my cellphone off Bell Atlantic Mobile over to CellularOne (A division of SNET, soon to be SWB). To conclude - bwaaaaahaaahaaaahaaa. Bye-bye Bell Titanic. The City of Providence has decided that they may abandon BA for all it's needs too! Tony ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V18 #49 *****************************