From: fgoldstein@bbn.|nospam.|com (Fred R. Goldstein)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.isdn
Subject: Re: Why is Bell Atlantic so expensive?
Date: 5 Jun 1997 20:43:44 GMT

In article <3396EB01.E273875F@objs.com>, ford@objs.com says...
>
>I'm considering moving to Philly from Dallas and can't believe the
>difference in ISDN rates.  I pay $75 (tax incl.) for unlimited usage. 
>It looks like the rate in Philly is $239.  How come?  Don't you folks
>have Public Utility Commissions up there?  What's their defense for
>permitting such high rates?  Aren't you folks griping? Are you all a
>bunch of wusses or what?

You have to understand the basis of Bell Titanic's (once they merge with 
NoNuts) ISDN tariffs.  Since I have testfied against 'em in two states so 
far, I know them well.  They try to justify them to the states as follows:

1)  Minutes of use cost x (fraction of a cent) per minute.
2)  ISDN is sold with callpacks with 20/60/140/300 hours of prepaid usage; 
the unlimited tariff effectively prepays around 1400 hours.
3)  Callpacks are priced based on the assumption that everyone uses, on 
average, 90% of their callpack allotment, so the price is roughly x times 90% 
of the callpack size, plus the fixed cost of the line (which is fairly close 
to the 0-hour fully-measured service price).
4)  For cost-justification purposes, it is assumed that while everyone uses 
90% of their callpack, exactly nobody ever goes over their callpack at all, 
so they receive zero revenue from overtime charges, which even at a penny are 
substantially higher than x.  (The exact value of x is proprietary, and my 
knowledge of it is under nondisclosure, but you can get a pretty good handle 
on it from some public documents.  If the BA-NJ cross-examination transcripts 
come out, it might be in there.)
5)  In order to convince the Commission that their prices aren't too high, 
they show that the actual average usage of a line is y (again, proprietary 
data).  If the average user with y hours buys the right Callpack, then 
because y is so low, their rates are actually lower than most other RBOCs.
6)  The fact that the average callpack is utilized MUCH less than 90%, and 
overtime revenue exists, is conveniently ignored.
7)  They have more lobbyists.
8)  ISDN's only a luxury for Internet dweebs, who are trying to ruin the 
world by tying up the phone lines all day, and it's not a basic service like 
analog lines which can be used all day for no extra charge, so they deserve 
to make all the money they can in order to subsidize analog lines.  Never 
mind that it's mainly the analog line concentrators (not used by ISDN at 
either end of the call) that are congesting.
9)  Go away.  We're the phone company.  We don't have to care.
-- 
Fred R. Goldstein   k1io    fgoldstein"at"bbn.com
BBN Corp., Cambridge MA  USA         +1 617 873 3850
Opinions are mine alone; sharing requires permission.

Newsgroups: comp.dcom.isdn
From: wb8foz@netcom.com (David Lesher)
Subject: Re: Why is Bell Atlantic so expensive?
Date: Thu, 5 Jun 1997 18:14:13 GMT

Steve Ford <ford@objs.com> writes:

>I'm considering moving to Philly from Dallas and can't believe the
>difference in ISDN rates.  I pay $75 (tax incl.) for unlimited usage. 
>It looks like the rate in Philly is $239.  How come?  Don't you folks
>have Public Utility Commissions up there?  What's their defense for
>permitting such high rates?  Aren't you folks griping? Are you all a
>bunch of wusses or what?


Wuss? Both Fred and I have been VERY active in the fight against
Bell Awful. The MD PSC Chairman now greets me by name. Black
Helicopters circle my house daily. 

But you need to understand that Bell Awful is desperate to make
money to recoup all they have lost on their various hare-brained
non-telco schemes, such as the one hundred million $mackers on
wireless CATV, to name just one. (Another is buying NoNuts....)

Further, Bell REALLY wants to just sell Centrex, period. ISDN is
good if it for Centrex, evil and nasty if it is not. 

And after all, since those naughty subscribers are using MODEMS and
causing The End of the Phone System as We Know It, and ISDN is
[Unless it's Centrex; which is good, of course] only used for the
Dark Side, that's all the more reason to kill it.

(Note that once they can bill by the minute, the World is Saved,
and Peace and Prosperity will flourish, at least at BAHQ. They told
me so.)

Your better bet is what we told the Commission[s] will happen.
Get 3-4 POTS lines and run MP over them to your ISP. That uses
4x the resources, but it's cheaper.
-- 
A host is a host from coast to coast.................wb8foz@nrk.com
& no one will talk to a host that's close........[v].(301) 56-LINUX
Unless the host (that isn't close).........................pob 1433
is busy, hung or dead....................................20915-1433

From: fgoldstein@bbn.|nospam.|com (Fred R. Goldstein)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.isdn
Subject: Re: Busy signal if 1B connection
Date: 24 Jun 1997 18:47:57 GMT

In article <33afef44.29131546@news.dca.net>, Don@Skyler.Com says...

>I just ordered my ISDN line from Bell Atlantic, and the rep seemed
>pretty smart and also consulted with some techies while I was on hold.

Hahhahah.

>What surprized me (and her too) was the techie told her if you were
>online with 1B only, people calling the POTS number would get a busy
>signal.  She didn't say if you were not online at all, but I assume it
>would work OK.  With call bumping, she said if you were connected 2B
>(using Ascend Pipeline 75), it would drop one for incoming or outgoing
>POTS calls, and add it back when the POTS call disconnected.

You have to remember that BA has a mandatory-mendacity rule.  The rep
would be fired for telling you the truth, the whole truth, nothing but
the truth.

If you're on line with 1B, and your gear is set up right, then a voice call
would ring in normally.  Call bumping allows calls to ring in with both B
channels up.  As noted elsewhere, if you have two SPIDs and the outgoing data
call is on the one that's being dialed into for voice, you'll have a busy
signal, but that's a configuration booboo on your part.
--
Fred R. Goldstein   k1io    fgoldstein"at"bbn.com
BBN Corp., Cambridge MA  USA         +1 617 873 3850
Opinions are mine alone; sharing requires permission.

From: fgoldstein@bbn.|nospam.|com (Fred R. Goldstein)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.isdn
Subject: Re: Q: pricing on 'always on' D-channel X.25 packet stuff
Date: 4 Sep 1997 02:21:45 GMT

In article <340dbd10.1705305@nntp.ix.netcom.com>,
hankkarl@ix.net.imnothere.com.com says...

>Why would BA want per-minute pricing on ISDN voice, but not POTS?

Because people who get ISDN other than Centrex phones are f*c*ing jerks,
pencilneck geeks grit-eating phreaks scumsucking beings with lousy physiques
criminal Internet cyperpunk toll-stealing hackers.  Just read BA's
testimonies about Internet users in general, plus their secret market
research that shows that an awful lot (sorry, the percentage is under
non-disclosure!) of their R-ISDN users are Internet users.... Therefore by
association, Internet people MUST be made to PAY for their SINS!  And since
the vast majority of dial-up Internet users are analog, the few they can
catch, the ISDN users, must pay and pay again!  The sins of the many are
borne by the few.  That, my friends, is their attitude.

They would like per-minute on POTS too, but they know it will NEVER be
accepted by the regulators.  So they define ISDN not as a digital interface
into the same network, which it is, but as a totally separate service to be
priced on a totally independent basis.

You have to meet these bozos to believe them.  And don't be misled by
bellatlantic.net; that's not mainstream, just something they "had to do".
There are a few excuses behind it, but it's complex.

>>>Congestion causes at least two problems:
>>>1. Blocking of 911 and other emergency calls, resulting in PUC issues.
>>
>>That's almsot always a "big lie".
>Why would they lie?

Company culture, borne of years of a) being regulated, b) dealing with
regulators in states with the finest government money can buy, and c) having
pricing/tariffing (a marketing function in any sane company) in the hands of
the LAW department, not marketing.  At the old NYNEX, the firing offense was
delivering on time:  If you could, you were surplus.  At BA, the firing
offense is telling the truth.  This is a real pain in the cafeteria, but then
I've told that story here before....

(re: PSAP congestion)
>The numbers (from a couple of RBOCs, as reported in a not-so-reliable
>newspaper) seem to indicate that POTS internet service is to blame for
>congestion.  And that the needed upgrades would require massive
>funding.

ISPs who RECEIVE calls on analog lines cause problems.  Of course they price
analog cheaper than digital.... Again BA's lawyer-generated pricing model is
entirely screwed up, and they reap what they sow.

>>Local and toll are switched on separate trunks.  Local congestion doesn't
>>block toll calls, just other local calls.  It does however add incremental
>>cost to add local-call capacity, which nets to around a third of a penny a
>>minute, or so.
>But, what if it is the analog line concentration module that is
>blocked?

No dial tone.  Of course the fix is ISDN, since ISDN data calls never hit
ALUs at either end.  But they price it to force Internet users onto analog!
They don't *want* sensible AO/DI.  The (ex-)NYNEX folks working on it are, I
presume, looking for work; I'll put in a good word for them if anybody asks.

>Fax over the internet may lead to a significant drop in toll revenue
>or a severely congested internet.  (IMO, Voice probably won't, unless
>QOS is addressed.)  Will the LECs sit still for this?  How will they
>recoup this loss?

None of their business, really; they have no royal franchise on
image-transmission revenue.  They could, of course, be more competitive.
Naaaah, they'll just whine.

>The user community that AO/DI targets is the analog modem users.
>AO/DI is intended to give analog internet (and intranet) users a
>better reason than speed to move to ISDN.  AO/DI is not just a
>"fatter" pipe, its a better pipe.  And if POTS service is ever charged
>per-minute, it may be a cheaper pipe.

I disagree with the first premise. AO/DI targets ISDN users, to give them an
incentive to disconnect B channels, even if they want to be "on line" all the
time.  The RBOCs mostly do not WANT user to upgrade to ISDN.  But then there
are variations between the RBOCs.  Your last two sentences, however, are
true.

--
Fred R. Goldstein   k1io   fgoldstein"at" bbn.com   +1 617 873 3850
Opinions are mine alone; sharing requires permission.

From: fgoldstein@bbn.NO$LUNCHMEAT.com (Fred R. Goldstein)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.isdn
Subject: Re: Bell Atlantic (NYNEX) per minute charges?
Date: 8 Oct 1997 20:24:03 GMT

In article <343bdfd2.9247789@news.shore.net>, rws@SPAMFREE-rwsullivan.com
says...
looking into ISDN for Internet access for our office and need to
>get some numbers for the boss.  In MA the phone co. charges $.028 per
>message and $.016 per minute for ISDN data calls.  I know there is a
>way to call 56k DOV to avoid the data charges, but still will be
>billed for any per minute voice charges ($.010 per message, $.016 per
>minute).

What voice charges?  Voice calls go according to your voice plan; for
residence lines, that's usually "free".  Data calls are at parity with
"measured voice" rates.  Business lines, however, are all measured.  DOV is
just a "voice" call.

>My question is, if I make a 64k or 128k DATA call, is the per minute
>data charge in ADDITION to the per minute VOICE call, or are there
>charges for ONLY the per minute DATA call?

Data calls go at the Measured or Toll rate, voice calls go at either the
Measured, Toll or zero rate, depending on your radius.  Data is not a
surcharge over voice.  (It IS in NY, but that's an entirely different
tariff.)

Also note everyone:  Bell Titanic has some "funny" billing problems on its
5E-served resi lines, such that ALL calls are often billed as "measured",
even WITHIN one's calling plan.  They then tell callers that they are being
charged data rates for "data over voice", since they "know" you're doing it.
The tariff is quite clear; a "voice" network call, whether used for a
mouthpiece, modem, or DOV, is charged at the voice rate.  Their CSRs have
lied outright to people about this lately.  DO NOT PAY these charges, and DO
call the Mass DPU to complain if it happens to you!
--
Fred R. Goldstein   k1io    fgoldstein"at"bbn.com
GTE Internetworking - BBN Technologies, Cambridge MA USA  +1 617 873 3850
Opinions are mine alone; sharing requires permission.

From: fgoldstein@bbn.NO$LUNCHMEAT.com (Fred R. Goldstein)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.isdn
Subject: Re: BellA 5E ISDN billing problems: WasRe: Bell Atlantic (NYNEX) per 
	minute charges?
Date: 9 Oct 1997 14:55:41 GMT

In article <343C580D.6435@webrelay.net>, scion@webrelay.net says...

>Y'don't say!  Well now that would explain a whole host of ills.  Do you
>have any
>more on this?  Extent? (I'm in MD.)  References? (helps to have a Bible
>to thump).

What happened in the former-NYNEX territory is unrelated to the problems
they've had in the former-BA territory, so far as I know.  Both billing
systems, however, have been broken.

>I just had a chat with a BellA R-ISDN CSR who couldn't figure out why my
>bill was so
>expensive even though I was on an unlimited plan.   Hmmm.

The $249/month plan?!  Actually, the problem in MD would affect that, since
it was treating local calls as toll, and therefore outside of the Plan.
Supposedly this was fixed last year.
--
Fred R. Goldstein   k1io    fgoldstein"at"bbn.com
GTE Internetworking - BBN Technologies, Cambridge MA USA  +1 617 873 3850
Opinions are mine alone; sharing requires permission.

From: fgoldstein@bbn.NO$LUNCHMEAT.com (Fred R. Goldstein)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.isdn
Subject: Re: Bell Atlantic (NYNEX) per minute charges?
Date: 9 Oct 1997 14:53:35 GMT

In article <61ilsm$slm$1@decius.ultra.net>, brett@ma.ultranet.com says...

>I'm curious what states you are referring to?  Since BA is now in New
>England people might assume you're talking about NE too.  As far as I
>understand BA has not changed the policy that Nynex had for ISDN in New
>England.  Am I wrong?

No, you're not wrong, Micke is (as usual, alas).  He's apparently trying to
keep his BA job, which requires (this is a basic condition of continued
employement) that he not tell the truth.

BA has not filed revised tariffs yet in Mass., and if they file 'em, they
won't just take effect without a fuss the way they do in those "finest
gummint money can buy" states that they're used to!
--
Fred R. Goldstein   k1io    fgoldstein"at"bbn.com
GTE Internetworking - BBN Technologies, Cambridge MA USA  +1 617 873 3850
Opinions are mine alone; sharing requires permission.

Newsgroups: comp.dcom.isdn
Subject: Re: NYNEX ISDN usage rates
From: fgoldstein@bbn.|nospam.|com (Fred R. Goldstein)
Date: Thu, 05 Feb 1998 03:21:25 GMT

In article <34D86C12.D7196AFE@senie.com>, dts@senie.com says...

>As Cyrus noted, the web page mentioned doesn't have any info on New York
>or New England at all. I am hoping that with BA taking over, the set of
>services offered to us in New England will start matching those in NY
>and the rest of Bell Atlantic territory. NYNEX used a single name for
>New York and New England, but seemed to not pay any attention to
>anything outside New York...

Sheesh, talk about asking for trouble!  The only reason we have half a chance
of ISDN here in Gnu England is that NYNEX was not allowed to act like its
southern neighbor.  It was pretty messy in NY too, but down in BA-South, it's
like they're awful and have an *attitude*.   Rumor has it that BA, having been
active purging management ranks of pro-ISDN holdovers from NYNEX, is trying to
figure out how to get the NYNEX tariffs overturned so they can start shutting
the whole thing down and restrict ISDN to Centrex where they think it belongs.

In Bell Titanic's eyes, consumer Internet access belongs on cable modems.  And
if you're an ISP, don't ask for PRIs to hook to their COs any more.  They'd
rather have you go to a CLEC than have to cooperate.
--
Fred R. Goldstein   k1io   fgoldstein"at" bbn.com   +1 617 873 3850
Opinions are mine alone; sharing requires permission.

Newsgroups: comp.dcom.isdn
Subject: Re: ISDN hitting its stride or dying a slow death????
From: fgoldstein@bbn.NO$LUNCHMEAT.com (Fred R. Goldstein)
Date: Fri, 06 Feb 1998 17:26:42 GMT

In article <6bfdlq$1lc@clarknet.clark.net>, gsh@clark.net says...

>I think BA thinks ISDN is priced attractively, since they make a boat
>load of money on it.

Huh?  Attractive to them, because it's an overpriced monopoly?  Not
so attractive to users. In terms of volume, though, their residential ISDN
draws miniscule volumes.  Some huge percentage (well over 80%) of their ISDN
business is Centrex.  So they talk about big ISDN numbers but if you exclude
the old AT&T 7506 telephone sets on (mostly govt.) desktops, it shrivels down
to a small niche product.  And a whole heck of a lot of people who want it
can't get it.

If they really wanted to sell it, they'd come up with more attractive
packages that could still make money.  But the warts on its face are a key
sales-prevention strategy.

>By your definition cable companies don't want to sell cable.

No, they do; it's what they sell.  Non-Centrex ISDN isn't what BA sells.
Centrex is their "product".  All the rest is what they do because they have
to in order to preserve their franchise.  Big difference.
--
Fred R. Goldstein   k1io    fgoldstein"at"bbn.com
GTE Internetworking - BBN Technologies, Cambridge MA USA  +1 617 873 3850
Opinions are mine alone; sharing requires permission.

Newsgroups: comp.dcom.isdn
Subject: Re: ISDN hitting its stride or dying a slow death????
From: fgoldstein@bbn.NO$LUNCHMEAT.com (Fred R. Goldstein)
Date: Fri, 06 Feb 1998 21:42:52 GMT

In article <6bfme6$i2l@clarknet.clark.net>, gsh@clark.net says...
>
>>>I think BA thinks ISDN is priced attractively, since they make a boat
>>>load of money on it.
>>
>>Huh?  Attractive to them, because it's an overpriced monopoly?
>
>Exactly.

The term "priced attractively", in common usage, refers to the way the
potential buyers see it.  That is what I meant.  You are turning my words
around.  I realize that in Wonderland, words mean exactly what someone says
they mean, no more no less.  But even on the abUsenet, *I* mean *my* words to
mean what *I* say, not the opposite.

>>Not
>>so attractive to users.
>
>That is irrelevent to the issue of what makes BA the most money.

Wrong.  I say they're using "kangaroo pricing".  This alludes to an old story
of a kangaroo who walked into a bar and ordered a beer.  The bartender asked
him for twenty bucks, and he paid.  The bartender then said, "We don't get a
lot of kangaroos here."  The kangaroo replied, "At these prices, you won't
get many."  Sam Walton grew very rich understanding that.  Profit
maximization does not consist of price maximization.  Price to drive down
volumes and you may maintain margins (though you lose economy of scale) but
you lose revenue.

>And if 20 percent is non centrix, that is quite a lot.

But it isn't.  I said "more than 80%" Centrex.  The actual number is closely
guarded by Bell.  I am under nondisclosure and it was a Discovery question in
the MD ISDN rate case, but they still refused to answer.  What numbers I have
seen imply that it's much higher than 80%.  Of course they tell you what a
big percentage increase they have, but 1000% of zero is still zero.

>> So they talk about big ISDN numbers but if you exclude
>>the old AT&T 7506 telephone sets on (mostly govt.) desktops,
>
>I don't know who uses AT&T 7506. I have a AT&T8510T on my desktop. :)

An older version.  Primitive by today's standards but common for Centrex in
the late '80s and very early '90s.  The D version has a built-in X.25 PAD for
D-channel packet, and DMI rate adaptation for primitive terminal-host data.

>I think you may be as fixiated on Centrex as you claim BA is.

I don't give a hoot about Centrex, but BA's behavior is quite notable for its
fixation.  They have more Centrex than any other telco.  It sets them off
from other telcos, who tend to have more diverse strategies.

>BA's practices and advertisement seem perfectly consistent with the
>idea they are making the most profit they can.

Public behavior is consistent with appearance they want to give.  Look closer
and the picture changes.

--
Fred R. Goldstein   k1io    fgoldstein"at"bbn.com
GTE Internetworking - BBN Technologies, Cambridge MA USA  +1 617 873 3850
Opinions are mine alone; sharing requires permission.

Newsgroups: comp.dcom.isdn
Subject: Re: failed ISDN loop qual. in CT - Bell Atlantic land
From: fgoldstein@bbn.|nospam.|com (Fred R. Goldstein)
Date: Wed, 11 Feb 1998 03:32:34 GMT

In article <34E10BBE.54440B44@marimba.com>, trogni@marimba.com says...
>
>I bought a P75 last year when I lived in Ameritech-land ( pretty good
>ISDN tariff).   I've moved to CT - BA land, and read about the higher
>tariffs.

Funny situation, since they only have about 3/4 of one town, so it doesn't get
the regualtory scrutiny the home-state telcos get.  I'm not even sure if Byram
has a CO, or gets cross-border numbers; Greenwich per se of course has  a local
CO.

>Now in our new house I've been told my (proposed) new ISDN line has
>failed the loop qual. (too far away from the switch)  The BA clerk
>mentioned on the voice mail that she left that an alternative remedy for
>this starts at $225+++.

That all?  In MA, it's typically $2500 to install and $25/month for a mid-span
repeater.  However....

>I'm wondering whether to cut my ISDN losses and sell my P75 for a big
>loss right now (although my wife & I were both very happy with ISDN @
>home and it will be hard to go back to regular modem speeds ).
>
>Does anybody have any advice on whether or not to attempt to remedy the
>loop qual. failure ?  Or is it a black hole that will suck up all my
>surplus cash ?

There's one possible way out with BA.  By default, they always seek to
loop-disqual whenever possible -- they pick the WORST loop they can find. But
ISDN works just fine out of a SLC, and nowadays, they have had to put in a fair
number of SLCs to provide adequate pairs to outlying areas.  Not like modern
telcos, but they're around.  (Of course they're usually put in wrong, in
"Universal" mode, so they kill modems.  ISDN works fine in Universal mode
though.)   So you just have to find a SLC which happens to be en route to where
you live.  This is not rare; your next-door neighbor's line might already be on
said SLC.

They will not volunteer this information via normal channels.   Telemon
(1800-forGET-ISDN) doesn't know a SLC from an oil slick.  You have to
sweet-talk your way to engineering, wherever that is for your district.  Then
some engineer, perhaps a retiree from a real telco someplace doing temp duty,
might let the cat out of the bag and put through your order.  Hey, it worked
for me.  And no surcharge.  (Though I've heard that in MA, they're starting to
try to find a way to surcharge SLCs, tariff be damned.)

Also note that "Total Reach", an Adtran line driver, goes up to 30 kf without a
mid-span repeater; it's a much cheaper solution than the older (Adtran too)
mid-span repeater, as it goes on the ends, not in a manhole someplace.  NYNEX
tested and approved it, but of course Bell holds it back.
--
Fred R. Goldstein   k1io   fgoldstein"at" bbn.com   +1 617 873 3850
Opinions are mine alone; sharing requires permission.

Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom.tech
Subject: Re: Telco's and 56K Modem technology
From: fgoldstein@bbn.NO$LUNCHMEAT.com (Fred R. Goldstein)
Date: Thu, 05 Mar 1998 21:42:05 GMT

In article <6dipgf$kh3$1@news.fas.harvard.edu>,
macdonal@login3.fas.harvard.edu says...

>        Hi, we are in the process of setting up a 56K modem pool
>        in the Cambridge area. We are using MCI Local service to
>        deliver both a channel T1 and a Primary rate ISDN. Bell
>        Atlantic handles the local loop here. (disclaimer - my
>        knowledge of telco networks is limited so what follows might
>        make me seem clueless, but hey, if it quacks like a duck :)
>        Anyway, things on the channel T1 worked fine, was able to
>        get 56k modulation from many locals around Boston. 56K
>        modem technology needs to have 1 analog to digital converion
>        between the subscriber and the ISP, this was the case.
>        Last week this was lost for people originating from certain
>        CO's but not others. I suspect the A to D rule got broken
>        in a number of places.

Possible but unlikely...

>	My questions are, is it not uncommon
>        for a CO to have multiple connections to a tandem some being
>        digital, and others being analog?

No.  There are no analog tandems.  None.  Nowhere in the country.  (If there
are any, at least, I'm not aware of it.)  There are a few analog interoffice
trunks, but you have to go VERY far afield to find them.  Certainly none in
Eastern Massachusetts.  The network, beyond the local switch, is all digital.
Even Bell Awful's local network in MA is all digital now; NYNEX wisely (rare
for them?) decided it was cheaper to throw away the old 1AESSs than upgrade
them to Signaling System 7.  (Bell Awful-South preserves some 1As.)

>	Have local loop providers
>        configured their network to be accomidating to this 56k modem
>        technology, made commitments to, or dont care?

Don't care.  But that's on the analog-line side of the CO switch.

It is possible that some of the interoffice (digital) trunks are "out of
sync", which will cause errors on modem calls, especially 56k.  It's
theoretically possible that Bell has installed some distortion-generators, in
order to prevent anyone from running faster than 28.8k, if that, on a "voice"
call -- they've threatened it, and paid Telco System in Norwood real money to
try to invent them.  The dears.  But I don't think they've actually deployed
them.  If anyone find them, please let me know because it'll be great fun to
talk to the DTE about them.
--
Fred R. Goldstein   k1io    fgoldstein"at"bbn.com
GTE Internetworking - BBN Technologies, Cambridge MA USA  +1 617 873 3850
Opinions are mine alone; sharing requires permission.

Newsgroups: comp.dcom.isdn
Subject: Re: Bell Atlantic Prices???
From: fgoldstein@bbn.|nospam.|com (Fred R. Goldstein)
Date: Mon, 18 May 1998 02:05:05 GMT

In article <355E5831.7D0A6036@access.mountain.net>,
bphillips@access.mountain.net says...
>
>Will Bell Atlantic drop its service prices for ISDN any time in the
>foreseeable future? I work with people who have Ameritec and pay 1/5th
>the price I pay :(

Bell Titanic (nee Bell Awful) doesn't want residential ISDN.  Their business
tariffs, in most states, are cheaper!  They view ISDN as a Centrex feature,
needed to put fancy phones (e.g., Lucent 8510) on a Centrex.  The rest is done
for regulatory requirements, as a kabuki dance to claim they have it, when they
are in reality actively discouraging it.

If you're an Internet user, you're their enemy.  They want you to go elsewhere,
like cable.

Now Bell Atlantic *does* offer a $60/month unlimited "7x24" Internet service.
But it's Bell Atlantic Mobile, and it's just CDPD, peaking at 19.2 kbps burst
rate.  Good price for CDPD, actually, if you've got a laptop and wander around
a lot.
--
Fred R. Goldstein   k1io   fgoldstein"at" bbn.com   +1 617 873 3850
Opinions are mine alone; sharing requires permission.

Newsgroups: comp.dcom.isdn
Subject: Re: Bell Atlantic NYC: Analog required before ISDN
From: fgoldstein@bbn.NO$LUNCHMEAT.com (Fred R. Goldstein)
Date: Thu, 21 May 1998 14:40:00 GMT

In article <6k1ban$djp@news1.panix.com>, admiral@panix.com says...

>I've been informed after weeks of talking with them that Bell Atlantic will
>not install an ISDN line. To get one, I have to first order an analog line,
>then request the addition of the ISDN "feature."

Hey, that's clever!  But of course it's not true.  Remember, BA has a mandatory
mendacity policy.  Telling the truth is a firing offense.  You're supposed to
know that, and figure out how to work around it.  So you just demand that they
put through the order anyway.  Now in the tariff, the *price* of ISDN is based
on the price of an analog line (whatever service class you select), plus an
ISDN adder, but they all go together into the order.  Perhaps the order dweeb
(Telemon at 1-800-forGET-ISDN?) was trying to sell the week's "$10 off if you
upgrade an existing line" special or something.  Anyway, I've ordered many a
NYNEX ISDN line without converting analog anything.

>Furthermore, I've been having a heck of a time getting them to connect the
>ISDN line to a 5E instead of a DMS which is the local CO. They'll do it,
>apparently, but it's not easy.

Now you're on thin ice.  You get whatever the local CO has.  If it's just a
DMS, then a line on a 5E would be "foreign central office service", which
probably has a tariff price, which you probably don't want to pay.

On the up side, you can order "1 voice 1 data" on a DMS and get "2 alternate
voice/data" capability, since the switch is too dumb to count them separately.
--
Fred R. Goldstein   k1io    fgoldstein"at"bbn.com
GTE Internetworking - BBN Technologies, Cambridge MA USA  +1 617 873 3850
Opinions are mine alone; sharing requires permission.

Newsgroups: comp.dcom.isdn
Subject: Re: Bell Atlantic ISDN pricing??
From: fgoldstein@bbn.NO$LUNCHMEAT.com (Fred R. Goldstein)
Date: Thu, 04 Jun 1998 20:07:13 GMT

In article <3576745D.950A8202@monmouth.com>, rallan@monmouth.com says...

>Can anyone verify that bell atlantic is lowering their ISDN rates in New
>Jersey? I had a customer tell me that the price will be rougly half of
>the going rate????

They have started to file in some states (BA-South, not ex-NYNEX) a new
BUSINESS ISDN tariff that has much lower rates.  Something like $33/month for a
140-hour callpack, with 0.4 cpm overtime, and $8/month for a 20-hour callpack
with .8 cpm overtime.  This compared to the 1-2 cpm overtime on resi callpacks.
They don't want to sell resi ISDN.  However, note that in NJ, even business
"voice" (DOV) calls are timed (5 min/MU) so the new data callpacks are
now cheaper than voice.

Given the high price of message unit calls in NJ, I could even see a "voice
over data" hack where business users pretend to make data calls and carry
voice!  This is already done for some "high quality audio" applications.  TA
vendors, are you listening? ;-)
--
Fred R. Goldstein   k1io    fgoldstein"at"bbn.com
GTE Internetworking - BBN Technologies, Cambridge MA USA  +1 617 873 3850
Opinions are mine alone; sharing requires permission.

Newsgroups: comp.dcom.isdn
Subject: Re: Why buy resi ISDN from Bell A******?  (Am I the last idiot?)
From: fgoldstein@bbn.NO$LUNCHMEAT.com (Fred R. Goldstein)
Date: Thu, 11 Jun 1998 20:14:35 GMT

In article <358027b4.75090939@news.shore.net>, none@nospam.com says...

>
>Not to be confused with BA/NYNEX where it's just the opposite.

NYNEX is the norm, BA's ownership not *yet* having affected tariffs.

Businesses routinely pay more than resi for local telephony, and often can only
get measured local service, where resi is flat rate or at worst (NYC,
Chicago; consider Vermont to be an outlier) untimed.  BA-South is so odd
because it makes resi often more costly, which nobody expects, and since it's
allowable for anyone to get business rates (but not the opposite), the resi
ISDN tariff stands as an anomaly.  BA-South's analog resi is on the other hand
dirt cheap.  Politics, you know, calling for huge subsidies so those poor
underprivileged people in Short Hills, Chevy Chase and McLean don't have to pay
over $10/month for their basic flat-rate analog line.

--
Fred R. Goldstein   k1io    fgoldstein"at"bbn.com
GTE Internetworking - BBN Technologies, Cambridge MA USA  +1 617 873 3850
Opinions are mine alone; sharing requires permission.

Newsgroups: comp.dcom.isdn
Subject: Re: DOVBS billing MA, USA
From: fgoldstein@bbn.NO$LUNCHMEAT.com (Fred R. Goldstein)
Date: Wed, 02 Sep 1998 21:01:47 GMT

In article <35ED8622.DE7FE6D8@kylor.com>, cook@kylor.com says...

>Bell Atlantic Residential Service Centre tells me:
>
>There is no ISDN tarriff in Massachusetts.

Lie, of course.  The ISDN tariff states the line rate, and states that voice
calls go at the voice option plan you choose, and data-bearer calls at the
Switchway tariff.

>That is if use a data rate of 56Kbs or above on a DOV call, I will be
>charged for Switchway service. That it is speed dependant and that
>56Kpbs triggers the billing.

They can't tell the rate you use, a modem vs. DOV.  They don't know.  Their
billing tape is based on the Bearer Capability.  They have had errors on some
tapes.

>Basically the ISDN technical support (Nelson Tibbett) and ISDN
>Residential Service support (Michelle) say that if I want unmetered high
>speed on my ISDN line, I have to use a V.90 modem (!!!). I could
>guarantee not getting the data call billing by changing the provisioning
>on the line to just Voice (instead of Circuit Switched Data and Voice)
>but would then have to use a modem.

They're simply lying.  It's mandatory at BA, after all, to lie.  Truth is a
firing offense.  Expect more of the same.

Now remember, you shouldn't as a rule tell them you're using DOV.  Tell them
you're making 3.1 kHz audio bearer calls and getting billed data.  If they ask,
tell them the bit patterns on your calls are none of their business; do they
have a wiretap warrant?  Your DOV *is* essentially a modem, type V.110 at 56k.
V.90 is a hack to make it work through codecs.

>Am I wrong, or do I need to appeal to some higher authority at Bell
>Atlantic or the Massachusetts DPU?

Tell Bell that you are NOT paying; it's a billing error, period.  Tell THEM
that you're calling the DTE (former DPU).  Call the DTE and tell them you're
getting billed Switchway for Telephone (3.1 kHz audio) calls.  The number of
complaints against Bell is carefully tallied by the DTE.
--
Fred R. Goldstein   k1io    fgoldstein"at"bbn.com
GTE Internetworking - BBN Technologies, Cambridge MA USA  +1 617 873 3850
Opinions are mine alone; sharing requires permission.

Newsgroups: comp.dcom.isdn
Subject: Re: DOVBS billing MA, USA
From: fgoldstein@bbn.NO$LUNCHMEAT.com (Fred R. Goldstein)
Date: Fri, 04 Sep 1998 21:17:53 GMT

In article <35F03443.5B7A661C@kylor.com>, cook@kylor.com says...

>Rhodes wrote:
>
>> But I predict they will continue to bill you for Switchway even if you opt
>> for CSV service only!

Not likely.  If the line is provisioned voice only, they can't bill for
Switchway -- their software is apparently that smart, and if it isn't they will
take the calls off the bill No Questions Asked.  Of course the DMS is too
stupid to block data calls on a BRI, no matter what you tell them -- it will
actually allow data bearer on a "voice only" line, or so I believe.  I wonder
how that'll bill....

>> Then you won't be able to try my suggestion to see if
>> BA bills 64K data calls incorrectly as voice bearer, like they are currently
>> incorrectly billing you for DOVBS calls as Switchway bearers. [...]

EXTREMELY unlikely, and very costly if you're billed Switchway for calls that
you made that way when you didn't need to!

>As you sugguest, they might not bill me for it. I know they are getting Voice
>Bearer calls at the CO. They get routed to a local number. Since these are
>supposed to be the only two factors for billing purposes and yet I get stiffed
>for data calls, maybe they have the billing table switched around.

What ISP prefix are you calling?  (Yes, it could matter.)

>Bell Atlantic claims to be able to bill based on the data transmission rate.
>These seems unlikely and unneccessary unless their objective was to bill DOVBS
>users at the DODVS rate. We know that many other BA customers in Massachusetts
>don't experience this so unless the DMS100 switch in Shrewsbury is breaking in
>new technology, BA is just making the story up as it goes along...

They've made errors in setting up their software before.  This is NOT the first
time.  And the DTE knows it.  Just join the complaint chorus.
--
Fred R. Goldstein   k1io    fgoldstein"at"bbn.com
GTE Internetworking - BBN Technologies, Cambridge MA USA  +1 617 873 3850
Opinions are mine alone; sharing requires permission.

From: fgoldstein@wn.do-not-spam-me.net (Fred Goldstein)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.isdn
Subject: Re: Data over Voice & Bell Atlantic in NYC
Date: Sun, 04 Oct 1998 02:53:32 GMT

On Sat, 03 Oct 1998 19:43:00 GMT, diomedes@reincarnate.com wrote:

>Mr Goldstein, thank you for the edification.  I should point out that while
>some customers may consider DOV a divine right, Bell Atlantic does not
>guarantee your DOV connections will be successful.

Indeed -- Bell Titanic doesn't guarantee that I can pass voice!  My
line often has more noise than an AM radio station during a
thunderstorm, to the phone on the POTS port.  DOV works most of the
time, about as often as the "real" modems I have do.

>In fact, BA sells you the
>ability to make an ISDN connect.  If you are legally able to bypass switchway
>charges by using the speech bearer service - and if it works for you - then
>more power to you.

>Since the acquisition of NYNEX Bell Atlantic has been working to make ISDN
>service as seamless in the North as it is in BA's Southern territory.

That's EXACTLY what we're worried about up here!

>In the
>South we have a single, highly efficient call center which handles everything
>from sales to logistics and installation to customer service and billing to
>technical support.  If you'll ask them, I think you'll find that customers
>speak quite highly of our ISDN services in the South.

I have heard quite the opposite, though there are exceptions of
course.   BA-South has satisfied ISDN CENTREX customers, but its
non-centrex RATEPAYERS are not treated so wel.  People are hoping that
the union settlement which moves the Virginia Beach under the CWA will
help.

>Meanwhile, as we work
>to integrate service departments in the North in order to become just as
>effective for our Northern customers, at the moment ISDN services in former
>NYNEXland may seem somewhat fragmented or disorganized.  If that's the case,
>we sincerely apologize - this is a temporary situation and will be overcome
>shortly.

It has been the case all along, and since I was a beta tester for
NYNEX ISDN (the first non-employee residence to have Virtual ISDN, in
fact, in 1992 -- I discovered a failure mode in the BR1TE that they
haven't yet completely solved, it seems), I know from disorganization!
The old NYNEX was the Keystone Kops.  Bell Atlantic, on the other
hand, was the Reichswehr --- organized, ruthless, and ultimately
self-defeating.   Think of the Wild Things With An Attitude.

>The folks at TechSupport have been hired to provide ISDN customers in the
>North with the highest level of support that can possibly be provided.

Then why in hell can't repair service fix my damn line!?!  Since it
has one of those intermittent BR1TE problems, which literally fades in
and out, they just wait until it hits an "up" cycle and declare the
ticket closed.  Cute.

>   If
>you own one of the terminal adapters BA sells and that TechSupport is
>familiar with - whether or not you purchased it through BA - we'll do
>_everything_ we can to help you get it working as you desire.  While we can't
>guarantee DOV will work for everyone, this support promise includes helping
>those customers who are so inclined set up their DOV connections.

Flat out lie again.  I recently had a correspondence with someone who
uses DOV and got billed "Switchway" for 3.1 kHz audio calls!  I think
he was in this newsgroup.  They gave  him every song and dance in the
book about how a "56k call" MUST be billed as Switchway, regardless of
BCap, since they monitor the actual data speed he uses!  What a load
of crap.

BTW, it would be nice if you admitted you worked for them up front.

--
Fred R. Goldstein   k1io   fgoldstein"at" wn.net
Opinions are mine alone; sharing requires permission.

From: fgoldstein@wn.do-not-spam-me.net (Fred Goldstein)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.isdn
Subject: Re: My two cents re: Bell Atlantic
Date: Wed, 24 Mar 1999 01:37:35 GMT

Okay, you want another Bell Titanic story?   My line started  getting
dodgey last fall, maybe earlier.  (Well, it was never really stable.)
It would go up and down.  Finally in December it went down for a while
so I reported it.  They said they found a bad wire on the pole or
something and  it was fixed.  Four weeks later, down again.  This time
they just waited until it fixed itself.  Two weeks later, again.  This
time, a tech said he changed a switch setting on the BR1TE card in the
SLC-96 in the manhole (CEV) where my line terminates.  That should do
it,.  Yeah, right.

Last month, on trouble call eight or so, a tech comes out, measures
the BER, and tells me that the line is fine.  Of course it has been
yo-yo-ing, so he just caught it at a good time.  But he rewired the
Network Interface on the outside of the house so now it can't be
unplugged.  Just in case the screws were the problem, or something --
he doesn't like NIs.  But he didn't fix anything.

So a week later, I call it in again.   Their repair records must
indicate that this line is getting to be real serious DTE-bait (DTE,
the former DPU, is our "PUC" in Mass.), so the NOC calls me right
back.  I tell 'em that the line is going down periodically and coming
back up after an hour or two.  Maybe a timing issue, some kind of
sub-millihertz oscillation or plesiochronicity?  This time they
listen.  And the next day a different tech comes out.  He's got
something incredibly rare, a clue.  I tell him that it's cycling.  He
measures the line (which was "up" at the time) and sees a few errors.
So he measures it in the manhole and sees the same. Thus, it's not the
wire.

It turns out that the SLC-96 (mid-1980s vintage DLC) had a defective
"SSU" (we don't know what that stands for -- does anyone?).  That's
the timing generator, common to the whole SLC, a shelf below the line
cards.  He replaced it with a newer one.  Since then,  not a peep; the
line has been (knock wood) stable for over a week.

Now the timing error won't be noticed on an analog line -- an
occasional clock slip is inaudible, and modern modems just do error
correction.  But the ISDN line, in the out-of-phase state, gets
incredibly noisy and then craps out.  Timing counts on a digital line!

So I had to do the diagnosis myself, by pointing at timing, and it
took nine or ten calls to Repair "service" to get it fixed.  That's
how competent Bell Titanic is.

And people wonder why  we want competition!
--
Fred R. Goldstein   k1io   fgoldstein"at" wn.net
Opinions are mine alone; sharing requires permission.

Date: Wed, 29 Sep 1999 22:41:57 -0400
From: Fred Goldstein <fgoldstein@wn.net>
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Re: New Legislation For Telcos?

At 08:54 PM 9/28/1999 -0400, Barry Margolin wrote:

>>   US senator seen in a TV advertisement asking everyone to talk to their
>> congressmen about local telephone monopolies.  He claims there is some
>> sort of "loophole" being proposed by rural phone companies that will
>> prevent local competition for Internet connectivity.  But, it's all
>> very vague and doesn't reference a specific bill before congress.
>> Does anyone know what that's about, and who is paying for the air
>> time?

> A notice was sent around our company about this, since it could impact
> our ability to provide Internet service if the GTE/Bell Atlantic
> merger is consummated.

> Apparently the FCC is applying provisions of the 1996 Telecommunications
> Act, which were intended to regulate the entry of local phone
> companies into the long distance market, to local phone companies
> trying to offer advanced services over the Internet.  The notice
> doesn't go into detail about what the FCC is doing.

That's revisionist history at its very worst.

The plain fact of the matter is that the 1982 MFJ prohibited the Bells
from *any* inter-LATA activity (as of 1/1/84).  An exception was
quickly made for purely-administrative traffic (e.g., they could carry
their own office calls across LATA boundaries on their own fibers, but
NO customer traffic of ANY kind).  Another exception that has always
been there applies to *local* calls tariffed as such; there are also a
few "corridor exceptions".

But when we at Digital Equipment Corp. hired NYNEX to be general
contractor for our private fiber optic network, they could help build
the Massachusetts segments and the New Hampshire segments, but the
little hops across the LATA boundary were handled by the subcontractor
(who did all the work anyway) with no NYNEX involvement.  Even that
would have been prohibited inter-LATA work.

The 1996 Telecom Act exempted wireless (cellular/PCS), so Bell
Atlantic Mobile and SBC Cellular One can carry inter-LATA traffic.
Before then, roaming had to use weird intercarrier arrangements, which
made it especially hard.

There was never, ever, any exemption for data or "advanced services".
BellAtlantic.net from day one (well before 1996) had users specify a
"global service provider" to carry Internet traffic across LATA
boundaries.  Yes, this was a required case of "equal access", with an
Internet backbone provider wearing the IXC hat, though in many places
there was only one choice.  (Sometimes it was AGIS, sometimes somebody
I never heard of elsewhere.)

Web hosting, local dial-ins and other such services do not count as
inter-LATA, since somebody else does the actual haulage.  Bell is already
in those businesses.

Alas, the late lamented BBN Corp. was an Internet backbone provider,
one of the handful of Tier 1 backbone ISPs.  GTE, as a non-Bell, could
own it freely; GTE even kicked in IRUs on 24 strands of Qwest fiber,
giving the Internet backbone enough long-haul bandwidth to be
competitive.  But if Bell gets ownership of GTE and hasn't gotten its
Section 271 approvals (to offer LD) in the major states, then the ISP
backbone business is sunk.  The FCC has *zero* right to waive this;
AT&T's and MCIW's lawyers are no doubt licking their chops at the
thought of any attempt to get a "waiver".

So Bell has gone to Congress to try to get Section 271 (the clause of
the Telecom Act that determines when the inter-LATA restrictions are
lifted; it requires that *all 14* points of a 14-point checklist be
met, state by state) overturned.

> The bills that they want us to have our legislators vote for are:

> H.R. 2420, the "Internet Freedom and Broadband Deployment Act of 1999"
> H.R. 1685, the "Internet Growth and Development Act"
> H.R. 1686, the "Internet Freedom Act"
> S. 1043, the "Internet Regulatory Freedom Act"

Even Goodlatte & Boucher's (I think HR 1686 is the "AOL bill"), that
calls for open cable access to non-cable-affiliated ISPs, contains a
Title 2 that essentially cancels Section 271.  (Technically, under
that bill the IXC will have to route the inter-LATA voice backbone
using ATM circuit emulation rather than traditional SONET muxing; this
is technically trivial and invisible to callers.) Bells get to enter
LD without opening up their local networks to competition.  As a
CLEC-startup consultant (among other things), I have seen hair-raising
shenanigans by some Bells (Titanic and Taco among them) trying to
prevent CLEC market entry.  They don't want to play by the rules; they
want to make new rules that give back their protected status.

> Our company has even implemented an intranet server we can use to
> automatically send faxes to our legislators (it's kind of strange that
> it sends a fax -- don't all the federal legislators have email
> addresses these days?).

Given Bell Titanic's attitude towards the Internet (they love it the
way Indonesia loves an independent East Timor), GTE Internetworking
employees should be praying for these bills to fail, and for somebody
in charge to get some common sense and sell off Internetworking before
Bell gets it.  Lordy knows ISP stock valuations are a lot higher now
than they were when BBN sold out.  But a shut-down backbone ISP is a
much less valuable property.

On the other hand, a merger of Bell Atlantic Mobile, GTE Wireless and
Vodaphone Airtouch makes sense for all sides combined.  The rest of
the proposed anschluss is dumber than rocks.

From: Fred Goldstein <fgoldstein@my-deja.com>
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.isdn
Subject: Re: DOV aka "TollMizer" -- does this mean that ISDN DOV calls are free 
	with PacificBell?
Date: Thu, 07 Oct 1999 20:47:29 GMT

In article <_YNJ3.1079$JS.10515151@newsie.cais.net>,
  "Christopher L. Estep" <jccomp2@olg.com> wrote:

> Indeed, practically ALL analog modem technology is designed to transmit
> data over voice-quality circuits (as opposed to "data-grade" circuits
> which are, of course, much cleaner).  ISDN, however, is designed to
> allow the reverse; to transmit voice calls over data-grade circuits.
> Bell Atlantic does NOT bill ISP calls as non-local/non-voice EXCEPT over
> non-Centrex data-grade circuits!  This rather unusual "quirk" in Bell
> Atlantic's Centrex tariffs is why ISPs (as a group) are the second
> single largest Centrex customer (trailing only the Federal Government).
> Local calls to a Centrex access point (either voice or data) are billed
> at standard Centrex rates if the endpoint is local to the Centrex access
> point; in other words, if a call to a POP served by Centrex is routed to
> a NAP (ISP endpoint) that would normally be a local call even if Centrex
> were not in use, it is billed at local-call rates, irregardless if the
> call is voice or data.  It is ONLY when calls to a Centrex-based access
> point are routed OUTSIDE the LACA (Local-Access Calling Area) of the
> access point that non-local (toll) charges apply (and that only applies
> if the routing path is over the PSTN; private-network routing puts the
> call out of reach of BA's toll Centrex tariffs).

I wish I understood what that meant.  Some triple
negatives about not non/local something or
other...  My point is that on my bill, I have not
gotten billed "Switchway" usage for
data-bearer calls to an ISP served by a CLEC.  I
usually use DOV but test calls recently for
Switchway haven't gotten billed.  And neither I nor my
ISP have anything to do with the evil cult of Centrex.

Bell insists that these are NOT local calls,
because calls to an ISP are jurisdictionally
interstate, and therefore they refuse to pay
terminating compensation to the CLEC.  The DTE,
unique among the states, concurs in that insanity.
(Sell-ooch apparently let Bell pick their own
appointments to the DTE.)  So if they charged
local-call rates for a call that they've insisted
is not local, there might be a course of action
against them.  And I've been unable to trap them
at it.

Of course they're so schrod up now that they
haven't correctly billed me my basic monthly rate
since June.  I called in July to lower the line
class (reducing the flat rate bill) and they never
implemented it, though they have records of it.
So I'm withholding payment until they get it
straight.  And they can't shut off my analog line
since that now comes from MediaOne. :-)

--
Fred Goldstein  fgoldstein@wn.DO-NOT-SPAM-ME.net
Disclaimer:  Opinions are mine alone.  Sharing
requires permission.