From: utzoo!decvax!harpo!duke!unc!brl-bmd!TELECOM@Usc-Eclb
Newsgroups: fa.telecom
Title: TELECOM Digest V2 #139
Article-I.D.: brl-bmd.492
Posted: Fri Dec 17 01:26:22 1982
Received: Tue Dec 21 21:57:34 1982
TELECOM AM Digest Friday, 17 December 1982 Volume 2 : Issue 139
Today's Topics:
Customer Provided Equipment - Not For Party Lines
Just How Private Is Cellular?
Hotel Surcharges Going Haywire At Disneyland
Coiled Vs. Straight Cords - Maximum Length
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: 15 Dec 1982 at 1817-CST
From: Keith Pyle
Subject: Radio Shack phones & party lines
The Radio Shack telephones (e.g., Slim-Fone UDS #43-332) indicate that
they are not to be used on party lines. Is this related to the
telephone's inability to tell if the ring signal is for it or another
party, or is there another incompatibility? Could the RS phone be used
with the bell disabled?
My parents bought one of the RS units for a relative who is on a
4-party line and, when they took it back, all the RS folks could say
was "The box says 'Not for party lines'".
(Replies to me, please; the Digests have been several days in arriving
lately.)
Thanks.
Keith Pyle
(pyle@utexas-11)
------------------------------
Date: Wednesday, 15 December 1982 22:07-EST
Sender: GAVAN at MIT-OZ
From: GAVAN at MIT-MC
Its [cellular phone service's] attraction is that it will make
mobile phone service available to a great many more people. The
cellular system will also provide technically superior service and
privacy, both of which are lacking in present mobile systems.
Perhaps I'm missing something about cellular. How does cellular
enhance privacy? Is it just that a potential eavesdropper would
have to be listening in to the right "cell" or area of town? Or
is there something more sophisticated about cellular that makes it
more private?
------------------------------
Date: 16 Dec 1982 1246-EST
From: John R. Covert
Subject: Massive hotel surcharges
While at DECUS at the Disneyland Hotel in Anaheim last week, I noticed
that the hotel uses a local accounting system for long distance calls
placed from the rooms.
I noticed this by noting that 8+1+NPA+NXX+XXXX went through without a
request for my room number. Although this could mean that the hotel
had either Automatic Identified Outward Dialing or a CO-CENTREX, I did
not believe that either AIOD or CENTREX was the case. It was clear
that there was no CO CENTREX because all the characteristics of a
local PBX were present. Determining for sure that there was no AIOD
was not so easy. To do this, I placed a call to a number I knew would
not answer and let it ring for three minutes before hanging up.
Upon checkout, there was a charge on my bill for a three minute call.
The hotel removed it from the bill with no argument when I told them
that I had let it ring for a long time.
Later, I looked at the charge. The hotel has a sticker on the front
of the phone stating that they will charge one dollar in addition to
the rate charged by the telephone company on all long distance calls.
They had charged me 4.59 for a three minute call at 23:44. This
seemed a bit high. So I checked on the rates:
1. Direct Dial rate after 11PM:
1st Minute 0.29
2 add'l at 0.20 0.40
----
0.69
1% Tax 0.01
----
0.70
Hotel Charge 1.00
----
1.70
This seems to be the correct rate they should have charged.
It would make money for them, the phone company, and me (since
it is a nickel cheaper than a credit card call).
2. Direct Dial Operator assisted rate after 11PM
1st Minute 1.84
2 add'l at 0.20 0.40
----
2.24
1% Tax 0.02
----
2.26
Hotel Charge 1.00
----
3.26
This is what they should have charged if they intend to charge
the rate the phone company charges hotels with HOBIC service
plus a dollar. This is a rip-off for the customer, since they
say that they are charging only $1 more than the phone company
rate. If they use this rate, they are charging $2.55 more
than the direct dial rate. They are in fact getting the
service at direct dial rates or lower (since they can use MCI,
SBS, or whoever to handle the calls).
3. Operator assisted day rate
1st Minute 2.29
2 add'l at 0.49 0.98
----
3.27
1% Tax 0.03
----
3.30
Hotel Charge 1.00
----
4.30
This is the most they could have possibly charged me, based on
the information in the room. But, in fact, they charged
$4.59, which is a bit more than even this.
I talked to the Assistant Controller at the hotel, who told me that he
would contact their communications company which has the billing
system. I am awaiting a written response. Other people staying in
the hotel told me of absurd rates they were charged, such as more than
$6 for a two minute call into Los Angeles.
Up until about 18 months ago, hotels were not allowed to add any
surcharges to telephone rates. All calls were placed through
operators at the phone company operator assisted rate. The phone
company notified the hotel of the charge by either calling the hotel
or by sending the charge to a hard copy terminal. The phone company
paid the hotel a 15% commission for handling calls. In order to
foster competition, the FCC now allows hotels to do what they want
with long distance calls, both in terms of routing and charging.
Making telephone calls from hotels has become a dangerous practice.
If you are going to be in a hotel for a week and intend to use the
phone a lot, it now pays to have your own phone installed!
[That of course assumes the Hotel will let you! --JSol]
------------------------------
Date: 15 Dec 82 21:03:03-EST (Wed)
From: Ron Natalie
Subject: Curly Cords
I think you hit the nail right on the head about the difference in
phone cord plug sizes. Although there may not be any adverse effects
from plugging things into the wrong holes (other than the instrument
not working), it is probably to cut down on the confusion over which
cable goes in which holes.
As for curly cords for the phone to wall jack connection. These are
made. I bought a TeleConcepts Smalltalker phone from TPC and it comes
with only one cord (this is one of these "hang-up on any surface", one
piece phones) which has the larger moduler plug that goes from the
phone to the wall. It is a normal straight cord for about eight feet
and then becomes curly for about aonther six feet (contracted). I
guessed that the coiled side is for the phone end of the cable,
although it really makes no difference. However, I've never seen
these cords sold seperately.
-Ron
------------------------------
Date: 16 Dec 1982 14:42:38-EST
From: Christopher A. Kent
Reply-to: cak@Purdue
Subject: Curly cords and modular plugs
Why can't I plug my line cord into the handset? Because Bell is afraid
of being sued. The reason is that they have placed a restriction on
the length of the cord from the base to handset, to avoid lawsuits
from people who trip over cords and hurt themselves. I've gotten the
runaround on this a number of times. We used to have an "old-style"
(no modular plugs) wall phone in the kitchen. We special ordered a 15'
straight cord, which we were told had to be specially made AT WESTERN!
This was the limit, and we had to sign a statement that we wouldn't
take legal action for any damages that might be cause by this cord.
Some years ago, our phone broke and was replaced with a modular unit.
The operating company (Cincinnati Bell) wouldn't give us a long cord;
we were stuck with the standard curled one. I begged, pleaded,
cajoled, threatened, to no avail. Finally I bought a long line cord
and took a grinder to the cord and made my own . Works just fine, but I
don't know if I'll be able to get it replaced when it breaks.
A pretty stupid situation, overall.
Cheers,
chris
------------------------------
End of TELECOM Digest
**********************
-------