---------------------------------------------------------------------- Message-ID: <f90d4919-10b6-4620-bb68-b25831113221@googlegroups.com> Date: 9 Mar 2019 12:14:06 -0800 From: HAncock4 <withheld@invalid.telecom-digest.org> Subject: Re: More twists with Frontier as Minnesota attorney general's office opens another inquiry On Saturday, March 9, 2019 at 10:04:35 AM UTC-5, Bill Horne wrote: > As Frontier Communications told regulators Tuesday that it is > improving service and mediating customer concerns, the state Attorney > General's Office disclosed an investigation into whether the company > had violated state consumer-protection laws related to its internet > service. > > The parallel filings to the Minnesota Public Utilities Commission > (PUC) came in response to a scathing report in January from the state > Commerce Department that alleged Frontier may have violated 35 > Minnesota laws and regulations related to service quality. Historical Notes: In 1950, the switchboard at the University of Minnesota handled 4,000 calls an hour. https://books.google.com/books?id=oOA4AAAAIBAJ&lpg=PA1&dq=minnesota%20telephone%20switchboard&pg=PA1#v=onepage&q&f=false In 1954, Kasson (Dodge County), Minn, received dial telephone service. https://books.google.com/books?id=8bQkAAAAIBAJ&lpg=PA1&dq=minnesota%20telephone%20switchboard&pg=PA1#v=onepage&q&f=false ------------------------------ Message-ID: <9d659399-6d5b-46d7-9561-23fe36b1a853@googlegroups.com> Date: 13 Mar 2019 13:44:31 -0700 From: HAncock4 <withheld@invalid.telecom-digest.org> Subject: Re: What scratches your personal itch? On Tuesday, March 12, 2019 at 11:03:22 PM UTC-4, Bill Horne wrote: > On Mon, Mar 11, 2019 at 01:10:12PM -0700, hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com wrote: > > > > The book, "Heritage and Destiny: Reflections on the Bell System > > in Transition" by Alvin Von Auw offers a different perspective > > on this issue. > > > > A key item was that the monopoly and telco policies were > > established by government regulators. Their goal was to provide > > universal service by cross subsidization. The very basic entry > > level telephone service was purposely priced below cost to > > make it as affordable as practical, while optional service > > items, such as extension phones and long distance, were priced at > > a premium to offset that loss. > > > > Divestiture was, in essence, a court ordered end to those > > policies. > > I don't think that divestiture was ordered by the court, and even if > it was "ordered" on paper, the change was ordered by forces outside > the legal system. > > As you describe, Congress wanted cheap rural phone service. They > achieved the goal by requiring businesses to pay more (in fact, a LOT > more) than the actual basis of Long-Distance calling. The rates were > exorbitant, and they were the major cause for the "Blue Box" fraud of > the Sixties and Seventies. It wasn't just cheap _rural_ service, but cheap basic phone service for everyone. In the 1970s, one could get a basic city line for about $3.50 a month TOTAL, including the telephone set and full maintenance. In my opinion, long distance rates by the 1970s were not exorbitant--they had been declining for years. In the 1970s AT&T introduced one minute minimum and deep discounts for late night and weekend calling. Businesses with heavy long distance volume (and they did not have to be that big) could get inward or outward WATS lines, and quite a few did. In my opinion, the Blue Box fraud was inspired more by people wanting the technical challenge, a desire to put something over the "big phone company", and a desire to get something for nothing. > However, the prime mover for divestiture wasn't Blue Boxes, but mutual > funds: in the 70's, mutual-fund managers accumulated enough of AT&T's > stock to force the board to accept the infamous consent decree which > spelled the end of Mother Bell. Thus, they brought about an end to the > long-distance charges which were affecting the fund managers' other > investments, and (as a by-product) the end of local phone subsidies in > rural areas. > > I don't think the Congress minded very much: all the farmers already > had their phones, and Western Electric built cables and instruments to > such high standards that the bill for that subsidy's end didn't come > due for decades. In my opinion (based on talking to many Bell and corporate telecom managers at the time and dealing with the transition on the job), Bell recognized that its old business model of building phones that lasted forever and renting them was obsolete and no longer profitable nor wanted by the public. That is, Bell realized the rental from extensions no longer covered the cost of sending a man and a truck out to fix them when the phone or its wiring failed. Bell was also hurting from a high amount of churning--customers moving. By not sending someone out to install or disconnect service it would save a lot of money. ------------------------------ Message-ID: <853A7E5E-009D-4952-B8F8-F8501245711D@roscom.com> Date: 13 Mar 2019 23:15:09 -0400 From: "Monty Solomon" <monty@roscom.com> Subject: Three men cop to $21 million vishing and smishing scheme Three men cop to $21 million vishing and smishing scheme Phone-based scam may be low-tech, but it netted big bucks, prosecutors say. Three Romanian citizens have pleaded guilty to carrying out a scheme that used recorded messages and cellphone texts to trick thousands of people into revealing their social security numbers and bank account information, federal authorities said. https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2019/03/3-men-plead-guilty-to-vishing-and-smishing-scheme-estimated-to-cost-21-million/ ------------------------------ ********************************************* End of telecom Digest Fri, 15 Mar 2019