From: utzoo!decvax!duke!mcnc!unc!brl-bmd!TELECOM@Usc-Eclb.ARPA
Newsgroups: fa.telecom
Title: TELECOM Digest V3 #24
Article-I.D.: brl-bmd.557
Posted: Wed Apr 13 09:23:30 1983
Received: Fri Apr 15 08:52:10 1983


TELECOM AM Digest      Wednesday, 13 April 1983    Volume 3 : Issue 24

Today's Topics:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date:  9 Apr 1983 1434-PST
From: ROODE at SRI-NIC (David Roode)
Subject: long distance access charge

The label on the bill would more properly read
	Monthly Service				    $12
	Add'l Monthly Service Formerly Recovered    $ 7
	  Out of AT&T Long Distance Revenues


I do not think this has anything to do with the matter of splitting
AT&T up. Rather it stems from the decision to allow competition in the
long distance market.  The total volume of long distance will increase
significantly--AT&T will just have a smaller share, which can no
longer (and never should have) subsidize the cost of local service.

Another wrinkle: to avoid a further deviation would require that the
increase be applied only to flat-rate customers, with measured
customers subjected to metering on their long distance calls (at local
rates) in addition to the costs of whatever long distance service they
desire to use.  Not only are the costs being shifted from long
distance to local, but they are being shifted from usage-sensitive to
non-usage-sensitive as well.  An effect counter to those who use their
phone subsidizing the "existence cost" for the phones of those who do
not is being seen here.

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

Date:     10 Apr 83 12:34:42 EST  (Sun)
From: smb@mhb5b
Subject:  long distance access charges
Reply-To: smb@unc

One more point about the access charges -- the alternative considered
by the FCC was a surcharge on long-distance *calls*, rather than a
flat rate; this was rejected because it would encourage the formation
of private networks by large corporations.

			-Steve Bellovin
			smb.unc@udel-relay

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

Date: 10 Apr 1983 1155-PST
From: GRANGER.RS%UCI@USC-ECL
Subject: Automated Calling Card authorization and dialled international calls

To those of you who have been interested in Calling Cards and the new
automated authorization system, I offer the following anecdote (which,
by the way, has not yet ended -- I'll keep you posted):

Our Story: In the predawn hours of a bleak winter morning in
Brookline, Mass., a certain Bell customer (namely, me) regretfully and
reluctantly leaves the warm comfort of his guest-bed (I'm a
houseguest, you see, visiting some friends) to take advantage of
off-peak IDDD rates to Italy (the rates change at 7 AM, and the only
time of day you can call Europe off-peak without it being the middle
of the night there is in the early morning hours here).

Not wishing to add to my friends' phone bill, I naturally opt to use
my Calling Card (issued by Pacific Tel, since my home and, therefore,
my residential service, are in Orange County, California). Now New
England Telephone, I know from previous experience, has recently
implemented a system of automated authorization for Calling Card
numbers: it works on both domestic U.S. and international calls, and
eliminates the need for operator-assistance by permitting you to use
the tone-dial buttons to enter your Calling Card number. The way it
works is as follows: on domestic U.S. calls, you dial "0" instead of

***Error on net connection***
{