---------------------------------------------------------------------- Message-ID: <pocimf$u2s$1@gal.iecc.com> Date: 25 Sep 2018 05:56:31 -0000 From: John Levine <johnl@taugh.com> Subject: Re: Universal Service Fund In article <20180922201202.10AA120052F63B@ary.qy>,John Levine <johnl@iecc.com> wrote: >In article <BYAPR13MB2232E26C6C4134241201709191120@BYAPR13MB2232.namprd13.prod.outlook.com> Naveen Albert wrote: >> I don't know where $0.03/min came from. The incumbent in my area >> does not offer any flat-rate long distance calling plan, and >> long-distance is $3.95 per month plus $0.15 per minute. A 40 minute >> call from Wisconsin to Minnesota is slightly over $6. An hour of >> talking is $9. I don't call that cheap. Turns out she's an at&t customer, so she can pick any competing long distance carrier she wants. AT&T has basically given up on consumer long distance, and offers only that overpriced plan for people who don't realize that they can make one phone call and switch to someone better. -- Regards, John Levine, johnl@iecc.com, Primary Perpetrator of "The Internet for Dummies", Please consider the environment before reading this e-mail. https://jl.ly ------------------------------ Message-ID: <20180924163209.GA16790@telecom.csail.mit.edu> Date: Mon, 24 Sep 2018 12:32:09 -0400 From: Bill Horne <bill@horneQRM.net> Subject: TCPA gets a new lease on life from the 9th Circuit court The panel vacated the district court's grant of summary judgment to the defendant on a claim under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, which places restrictions on the use of automated telephone equipment. The plaintiff alleged that three text messages that he received from the defendant violated the TCPA. The district court held that the automatic text messaging system that had sent the messages was not an automatic telephone dialing system ("ATDS") under the TCPA because it lacked the present or potential capacity "to store or produce telephone numbers to be called, using a random or sequential number generator." After the district court ruled, the D.C. Circuit issued its opinion in ACA Int'l v. Fed. Comm'cns Comm'n, 885 F.3d 687 (D.C. Cir. 2018), invalidating the FCC's interpretation of questions raised by the statutory definition of an ATDS. http://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2018/09/20/14-56834.pdf -- Bill Horne (Remove QRM from my email address to write to me directly) ------------------------------ Message-ID: <BYAPR13MB2232A90254D6F2EB842D3AAB91170@BYAPR13MB2232.namprd13.prod.outlook.com> Date: 24 Sep 2018 16:47:41 +0000 From: "Naveen Albert" <wirelessaction@outlook.com> Subject: Re: Universal Service Fund On Saturday, September 22, 2018 2:33 PM, Hancock4 wrote: >On Saturday, September 22, 2018 at 1:47:44 PM UTC-4, Naveen Albert wrote: >> The phone companies also lost from divestiture. The previous >> relationship between BOCs and AT&T was very synergistic. It was very >> efficient at restoring service quickly and operating >> efficiently. After the MFJ, it was pure disarray everywhere. A phone >> network is better when unified, not fractured into a million pieces >> as it was. And the whole LATA scheme is about the most bizarre and >> convoluted structure ever dreamt up. Back then, long-distance was >> charged by distance. Now, calling your neighbor can be considered >> long distance because of dumb LATA rules. What the heck?? >> Back then, consumers could just call the "phone company" for >> service, which was prompt, quick, and hassle-free. After >> Divestiture: which phone company? The local phone company? The >> interstate phone company? AT&T? MCI? Some other competitor? > To enlarge on the above: > > My employer at the time of Divestiture was implementing a large scale > data communications network. Before Divestiture we had an efficient > single point of contact with the local telephone company. After > Divestiture we had to deal with the local telephone company and > various long distance companies. If there was a problem, there was > finger pointing between the LD carriers and the local company. It > meant a delay in fixing trouble which meant business lines were down > and operations disrupted. Very frustrating. > > Yes, there were some rate savings. However, these were more than > eaten up by the fact we had to now hire our own staff to do the stuff > the phone company used to do for us, and handle the finger- pointing > issues. > > The LATA scheme was particularly frustrating and expensive. We had a > branch office that occupied two buildings across the street from each > other. The street happened to be a LATA boundary. Previously, we > used local lines connect the two buildings, easy, no problem. After > Divestiture it was a big expensive mess. > > Back then, we also had problems with MCI and Sprint trying to muscle > in to get business. MCI threatened to sue us (they did a lot of that > to build up their business). (There was a good book that described > the early days of MCI. It was pro-MCI, and actually felt that MCI was > entitled to force their way onto customers by litigation, as if MCI > was entitled to business instead of earning it by offering superior > service at a lower price.) > > In terms of telephone sets and local switchgear, I think Avaya is > pretty good, and they're the descendant of Western Electric. But the > old Western Electric gear was extremely reliable and durable, and of > course made in the USA. > > Ironically, we've now come full circle in that MCI is gone and a local > carrier can now handle long distance. I think the bulk of the > telephone industry today is only AT&T and Verizon, with others > (e.g. Frontier, Century) occupying a relatively small niche. Given > that we're back to where we started, what was the point of > Divestiture? Given that we're back to where we started, what was the point of Divestiture? We're only back to where we started in one sense. The monopoly aspect of the business is kind of back. But not really, we still have unneeded competition that complicates things. But the Bell System is definitely not back. There is no quality customer service. They all contract out to Asian call centers who can't speak properly and have no idea about how to help up. I remember talking with AT&T for 2.5 hours once only to get nowhere and was rudely hung up on at the end. I called CenturyLink and was talking instantly to this very helpful guy who lived in Montana, who answered all my questions. I'm certainly glad CL is the ILEC in MT, not AT&T! No helpful installers today. If you go to AT&T's website you can't even find where the landline stuff is, you have to do an Internet search. Copper everywhere is decaying. Things would be much better if Divestiture had never happened. The only thing I like about Divestiture is now we can own our own phones. Good for people who are telephone collectors, like me. But people were doing that unofficially back before Divestiture anyways, so that might be a moot point too. ***** Moderator's Note ***** A. Because it disturbe the normal top-to-bottom flow of a written conversation. Q. Why is top-posting bad? Bill Horne Moderator ------------------------------ ********************************************* End of telecom Digest Wed, 26 Sep 2018