The World of Computer Software/The World of Computer Software.iso/tc13-034.zip/TC13-034.TXT

Text File | 1993-01-21 | 22KB | 486 lines

TELECOM Digest     Wed, 20 Jan 93 01:36:30 CST    Volume 13 : Issue 34

Index To This Issue:                     Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: OBT and Flat-Rate Service (Michael Peirce)
    Re: OBT and Flat-Rate Service (David J. Greenberger)
    Re: OBT and Flat-Rate Service (Ang-Peng Hwa)
    Re: OBT and Flat-Rate Service (Jeffrey C. Miller)
    Re: OBT and Flat-Rate Service (Jack Decker)
    Re: Apartment Security Stupidity (Mike Kimura)
    Re: Apartment Security Stupidity (Ethan Miller)
    Re: Good Opportunity For Fraud (Ed Greenberg)
    Re: Good Opportunity For Fraud (John Pettitt)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: [e-mail] (Michael Peirce)
Subject: Re: OBT and Flat-Rate Service
Date: Tue, 19 Jan 93 14:34:22 PST
Organization: Peirce Software
Reply-To: [e-mail] (Michael Peirce)


In article <[e-mail]> ([e-mail]), is
written:

>> [Moderator's Note: I've never understood why people had such a big
>> objection to simply paying for the service they use. We've had no flat

> I would suspect that it is because people consider local phone service
> to be a subscription service, just like the newspaper or cable TV.
> With the newspaper, you pay the same amount every day, regardless of
> the number of pages in the paper.  Why not pay by weight, or by
> section?  Why not pay for cable by usage?  Because it is inherently
> more convenient for the USER to conceptualize the charge and prepare
> for it.  It would annoy me every month if my local phone bill was
> different and I had to puzzle it out.  How am I going to assure myself
> that I really made those calls?  With my long distance bill, I can
> look at the city/number combos and identify 95+% of the calls
> immediately.  Surely the LEC won't itemize the local bill, and even if
> they did, how am I going to find out the 555-1234 is that wrong number
> I dialed last month?

It's interesting to note that some of the cellular vendors are
starting to introduce a sort of subscription service.

They often bundle in the first hour, say, of usage in the stardard
charge.  Usage beyond this baseline is charged for in a more
traditional way, but for that first lump sum of service you basically
have a subscription telephone service.


Michael Peirce     [e-mail]
Peirce Software    Suite 301, 719 Hibiscus Place
                   San Jose, California USA 95117
Makers of:         voice: [phone] fax: [phone]
     Smoothie      AppleLink: peirce & America Online: AFC Peirce

------------------------------

From: [e-mail] (David J. Greenberger)
Subject: Re: OBT and Flat-Rate Service
Organization: Cornell Information Technologies
Date: 19 Jan 93 05:24:06 GMT


Hi, Patrick!

[e-mail] (Patrick Lee) writes:

> areas.  I can't understand why so many phone companies out there still
> have flat rate service and that their customers don't mind (and now we
> have state legislatures trying to keep flat rates alive)!  I for one
> like paying for what I use (and I do make over 300 local calls -- 10.6
> cents a call with 40 and 65 percent discounts at different times).  I
> have no problem with that even though I will probably be paying less
> with flat rate.

And I can't understand why you object to phone users in areas
supporting flat rate using it.  If the phone company thinks it can
make money off of it, what's wrong with it?  Even for users who don't
make more than three phone calls a day (which is about what Ithaca's
flat rate service is worth), they have the peace of mind of not having
to worry about how many calls they're making.  I frequently have
trouble connecting to my UNIX system, but I don't have to worry about
plugging away with flat rate service.

> I pay for what I use, fair is fair.

No, you only pay per call.  You don't pay by the minute.  You don't
pay based on distance.  Do you really think you're "using" just as
much in making a ten-second call next door as in making a four-hour
call from southern Brooklyn or Staten Island to northern Bronx?  The
cost is the same.


David J. Greenberger    BBS: [phone]
106 West Avenue         Internet: [e-mail]
Ithaca, NY 14850        RIME: Common, ->48
[phone]

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 19 Jan 93 17:11:48 SST
From: Ang Peng Hwa <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: OBT and Flat-Rate Service


Here in Singapore, we recently swtiched to an *all-metered* system.
There is not flat rate service at all except for toll-free lines where
the firm called pays. There is an annual "access charge" of S$100
(US$61).

The rates are 1.4 Singapore cents a minute during office hours (8-5)
and 0.7 cents otherwise. That works out to about US0.85 cents and
US0.42 respectively. (They tout it as the cheapest tolls in the world.
Ha.)

Result? There was a lot of initial resistance. Today, about 78 percent
of subscribers pay less. Among my group of friends four of five have
phone bills below S$2 monthly. (In my case, it was about S65cents for
a few months.  It was so low, the phone company didn't even deduct
from our autobank.)

Singapore Telecom said it was "losing" between S$1 and S$2 million
(US$0.6 to US$1.2 million) a month even though they had designed the
system to be revenue neutral.

Businesses are paying more. In part, users like me are switching to
them instead of making calls from home.

I'm not sure if the compactness of Singapore plays a part here. But
the above may give some indication as to the economics of the local
call.

------------------------------

From: [e-mail] (Jeffrey C Miller)
Subject: Re: OBT and Flat-Rate Service
Organization: Air Force Institute of Technology
Date: Tue, 19 Jan 1993 19:28:30 GMT


In article <[e-mail]> Rob Knauerhase <knauer@cs.
uiuc.edu> writes:

> I mailed an article here last Thanksgiving about Ohio Bell's sales
> pitches for their relatively new measured-service variants, commenting
> that my mother's phone bill listed an _increase_ if she switched to
> any of their new plans (based on her typical usage).  Someone from
> this group mailed me privately warning that in Michigan there was now
> no option of flat-rate, and to watch out for the same thing in
> OBT-land.

Yup, for the third consecutive month, OBT has told me how much extra
I'll pay if I switch to a measured service.  Darned nice of them to
remind me how economical flat-rate is.

> As I am for the time being residing in central Illinois, I'd
> appreciate it if an interested party closer to Columbus would keep the
> Digest (and/or me) informed as to how (and if!) this legislation
> proceeds.

I'll try ... after all, it's in my interests :-).

> [Moderator's Note: I've never understood why people had such a big
> objection to simply paying for the service they use. We've had no flat
> rate service in Chicago outside a very small local area for many

> Count me as one who approves of "pay for what you use'; I don't like
> paying subsidies for my neighbor's use of the phone. I don't do it for
> the electricity, water or gas they use, why should I for their phone
> calls via flat rate, averaged out pricing?  But then again, I don't
> run war dialers against entire CO's or call computer chat lines in the
> outer fringes of 708/815.  PAT]

As someone's .sig said, "those who can't talk math are doomed to talk
nonsense" (or something like that) ...

I just happen to have my latest OBT bill here right in front of me:

Touch-Tone Service : $1.80
FCC Access Charge :  $3.50
911 Service Charge : $0.12
Local Access Line  : $6.70
Flat-Rate Service  : $8.55

Now I'll be more than happy to pay for what I use just as soon as they
can tariff it in such a way that I can tell what I'm paying for.  By
my reckoning, there are four separate charges there that apply to
local calls.  Why the hell should I pay extra for the "privilege" of

Touch-Tone service when it's no more difficult for OBT to process DTMF
than DP?  Why should I pay the LEC for access to a LD carrier; why not
have that charged back through the LD carrier as a charge for access
to me as a customer, if lost revenue due to divestiture is a problem?
Why should I pay for 911 before I use it -- they're more than happy to
charge $0.30 / call for 411, why not the same for 911?

Now maybe I'm the one talking nonsense, but it seems to me some
significant overhaul is needed before we can start talking about "pay
as you use" for LEC's.


Jeff Miller,  NH6ZW/N8,  AFA1HE (ex WD6CQV, AFA8JM, AFA1DO)
AFIT School of Engineering, Wright-Patterson AFB, OH

------------------------------

Reply-To: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: OBT and Flat-Rate Service
Date: 19 Jan 93 19:50:02
From: [e-mail]


Pat, I generally approve of the way you moderate this conference but I
wonder why you always feel compelled to get in "the last word" on any
message opposing mandatory measured service?  You say you don't
understand the opposition to it, yet folks have explained it to you
numerous times.  For your benefit and those of other Digest readers
(assuming you allow this article into the Digest), let me give you a
(hopefully) BRIEF summation of the arguments against measured service:

1) In the two states where voters have actually had an opportunity to
vote on the issue (Maine and Oregon), they have turned down mandatory
measured service handily.  The public doesn't want it.

2) Local calls are not itemized.  Maybe you trust your telco to count
calls accurately.  I don't.

3) You don't get credit for wrong numbers or poor connections (some-
thing of special concern to those of us who live in GTE land).

4) Unlike gas or electricity, you are not using something up when you
use your telephone.  There is virtually no cost increase to the phone
company when you place a call, since the switching equipment remains
powered up and ready whether there are any calls or not.  Telephone
cables and other "outside plant" (by far the largest expense for any
phone company) do not wear out any faster because they are used more
often.

5) Even if you assume that the phone company had to add switching
capacity because of the number of simultaneous calls placed (and it is
really a stretch to assume that, except perhaps on some heavily-loaded
exchanges in financial districts and the like), measured local service
does not deal with the problem fairly because it charges on a PER-CALL
basis, not by time.  Thus, a modem user (whom you seem to see as the
evil force that necessitates measured service, even though most of us
do our modeming during off-peak periods) who ties up a phone circuit
for an hour at a time is not charged nearly as much as the guy who
makes several one-minute calls to see if a friend or relative has
arrvied safely after making a crosstown trip in icy weather.

The only reason the telcos want to charge on a per-call basis is
because it's now possible to do so economically, and they can convince
some gullible people that it's really fairer to do it that way.  Do I
think telcos are greedy?  Well, I have noticed that the small,
independent telcos who charge only fifty cents or a buck a month for
custom calling features and touch tone (or even offer touch tone free
even though NOT required by law to do so) almost NEVER ask for
mandatory measured service.  Only the big, fat, greedy companies who
try to get top dollar for every service offered do.

Honestly, Pat, this sounds like a case of "my mind is made up; please
don't confuse me with facts!"  You are certainly entitled to your
opinion, but I do rather wish you'd quit using your position as
Moderator to beat us over the head with it.  It's certainly not the
majority opinion; not here and not among the general public if the
votes in Maine and Oregon were at all representative.


Jack Decker --- 1:154/8.0 FidoNet, [e-mail]


[Moderator's Note: Your message is the last one in this series of
replies I started publishing a couple days agp. This time, instead of
me getting the last word, you get the last word, okay?    PAT]

------------------------------

Date: 19 Jan 1993 15:42:11 -0800 (PST)
From: Mike Kimura <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Apartment Security Stupidity


> [Moderator's Note: I am rather surprised that this system actually
> dialed a seven-digit phone number. Most such arragements simply seize
> the pair at some point between the CO and the tenant [...]

I am not surprised since both the apartment I previously lived at and
my current condominium use a system that dials the telephone number.
In fact, at most of the security units I visit I can hear the system
dialing (sometimes even pulsing) the telephone number.

We used to have a private intercom system that opened the front gate.
It was inconvenient because the ringer was so quiet I couldn't hear it
from upstairs and you had to be downstairs where the unit was to talk
and open the gate.  When our condo board decided to upgrade to a
system using the telephone,  I extracted some articles from Telecom,
which our Moderator wrote, describing the "better" system.

However, next we received a request to provide our telephone number so
it could be programmed into both of our entry gates.  Instructions
indicated to push "9" to let someone in.  No mention was made as to
how to deny entrance nor was any mention made as to a "password" to
open the gate yourself.  Also, it was suggested that we purchase
Call-Waiting so people at the front gate won't get a busy signal.

Most recently the condominium board has been bemoaning the fact that
PacBell charges them for two (one at each gate) *BUSINESS* lines.  I
believe each call from the gate to a condo unit ends up being charged
at business rates.  Also, the phone lines to these entry gates
terminate in the parking garage with a regular phone jack.  I wonder
how long before someone taps in a phone there and makes calls charge
to the association?


Mike Kimura ([e-mail])


[Moderator's Note: Well again, the 'better' systems don't leave this
sort of thing to chance. They do not require call waiting; they do not
require that you provide your phone number for programming; they do
not even require that you have phone service from telco. With the
system from IBT, if by chance your phone service is terminated, let's
say due to a credit disconnect, the front door intercom still works.
Your phone may be sitting there dead 99 percent of the time, but if
someone comes to the door, presto, you get the door call. The better
systems do not care who plugs into whatever jack they please: all they
will get is a dialtone to a very limited in scope 'network'.
Incidentally, tell the condo association to get only one business line
if they insist on doing it the way they are. Have the phone at the
back gate be an extension to the one at the front gate. Given that the
door calls are only a few seconds in length ideally (in fact, IBT
times out the connection after 30 seconds, as does the customer
premises version), it would be rare that someone was trying to use the
phone at the front gate simultaneously with someone at the back gate.
By bringing the gate latch through a certain contact in the phone unit
itself, it is possible to fix things so only the gate where the phone
is off hook at that moment would get the unlatching pulse, and an
'in-use' light on the phone would be honored by most courteous people
who saw it illuminated for a few seconds when they arrived.  PAT]

------------------------------

From: [e-mail] (ethan miller)
Subject: Re: Apartment Security Stupidity
Date: 19 Jan 93 17:45:43
Organization: Berkeley--Shaken, not Stirred
Reply-To: [e-mail]


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] writes:

> [Moderator's Note: To repeat, the better systems do NOT use dialtone
> from the CO. They generate their own dial tone and only get as far
> as the box by the basement demarc or wherever. The only calls they
> can make are to two, three or four digit door code numbers. Even the
> system from IBT which has equipment housed in the CO uses what would
> be better described as an 'intercom line' or maybe a special sort of
> centrex to operate. Those phones do not get near the network. ...]

The key word here is "better systems."

We have a lot of small (8-25 unit) buildings here in Berkeley.  Many
are protected by intercom security systems.  Some of the systems are
totally separate from the phone system (push buttons on a wall speaker
in the apartment, typically).  All of the rest (my sample size is
dozens) dial the full phone number.  I know; I can recognize the
tenant's phone number from the tones or pulses(!) that the system uses
to dial.

A separate phone line system is *much* cheaper to install for a
building without a preexisting security system.  You need to put in a
new phone line ($40 in Berkeley), a wire from the new line's demarc to
the security box, and the box itself.  Since the box is on an outside
wall, running the phone wire isn't terribly hard.  Monthly cost is
around $10.  My girlfriend's building got such a system about a year
ago.  It definitely dials her number (via pulse dialing) when I punch
up the appropriate code.  It even gets a busy signal occasionally.
The two digit code number from the keypad is translated to a seven
digit phone number.  I'll experiment to see if I can make other calls

using an external dialer.


ethan miller--cs grad student
[e-mail]   #include <std/disclaimer.h>


[Moderator's Note: All the landlord needs is a few long distance calls
made from that phone to demonstrate a 'regular phone line' is NOT a
cheaper way to go. Some landlords may even be too stupid to have those
phones blocked from 900/976/incoming calls, allowing someone to stand
at the front door and accept incoming collect calls from sex services,
etc.  The CPE version, from GTE in Canada only cost me about two grand
when I installed it for the apartment building I mentioned yesterday.
Of course, I did not charge myself for my own labor.  :)   PAT]

------------------------------

From: [e-mail] (Ed Greenberg)
Subject: Re: Good Opportunity For Fraud
Organization: Netcom Online Communications Services (408-241-9760 login: guest)
Date: Tue, 19 Jan 1993 22:20:18 GMT


In article <[e-mail]> Patrick Lee <patlee@Panix.
Com> writes:

> I guess Chicago's Citibank has older ATM machines than we have here in
> New York City.  I haven't seen any Citibank ATM machine which eats the
> card for the past few years.  Just dip the card in and take it out and
> proceed with answering which of the five languages to use.

I lived in New York when the CBCs (Citicard Banking Centers) first
came out.  They were unique in those days because (a) every branch had
them and (b) they were all behind locked doors with card readers,
instead of out in the street.  They were also unique because the card
was dipped and removed and HAD NO MAGNETIC STRIPE!

I was told that there were bits of metal in the cards that were
inserted between two plates of a capacitor.  Based on where the metal
was, some caps discharged and others did not.

Nowadays, I understand that Citibank cards have magstripes, so that
they can intenetwork, but remember that there was no plus, star or
cirrus system in those days and no reason for Citibank cards to work
anyplace but Citibank.

I banked at Citibank from January 1978 to October 1979, when I changed
jobs and was offered free checking at Marine Midland.  By that time,
ATMs were becoming more popular around the metro area and Citibank's
branch and ATM network was no longer as unique as it had once been.

Nonetheless, the CBCs, and available cash 24 hours a day, was quite an
oddity on Long Island in those days, and we were happy to have it.


Edward W. Greenberg  | Home: [phone] | [e-mail]
1600 Stokes St. #24  | Work: [phone] | DoD#: 0357
San Jose, CA  95126  | Fax:  [phone] | KM6CG (ex WB2GOH)


[Moderator's Note: I got my first ATM card from the Northern Trust
Company here in 1973 or 1974. There was no networking; the machine was
purely local to that bank and sat in the outer lobby. If it broke down
during off-hours (and believe me, it seemed to be down more than it
was up) then the lobby security guard had the home phone numbers of a
couple bank employees who were on standby duty. They'd come from home
at odd hours of the night and restart the machine.   PAT]

------------------------------

From: [e-mail] (John Pettitt)
Subject: Re: Good Opportunity For Fraud
Organization: Starnet-Public Access UNIX--Los Altos, CA  415-949-3133
Date: Wed, 20 Jan 1993 00:43:50 GMT


[e-mail] (Rod Gamble) writes:

[ story about PINs on UK ATM's being four letter works or phone
numbers ]

Sorry to shoot down your nice urban legend but ...

1) Most UK cards either come with a number or let you choose a number
at first use.  However the machines don't as I recall have alpha
keypads (British phones have not had letters on the dial/keypad for a
looooonnnnggg time).

2) There was a survey and the most common numbers started 19?? or
ended with two digits between 01 and 12.  This strongly implies that
dates are used by most people when asked for a pin.


John Pettitt, CEO, Dolmus Inc.            [e-mail]
Archer N81034                    apple!starnet!jpp
Me, say that, never: It's a forged posting!    Fax:   [phone]
                        Voice: [phone]

------------------------------

End of TELECOM Digest V13 #34
*****************************