Re: A Glaring Lack of the Obvious
- From: "Keith F. Lynch" <kfl@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: 1 Dec 2007 13:08:39 -0500
Michael S. Schiffer <mschiffe@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
For a long while, an extension phone was something that only Ma
Bell could provide, and for which they would charge a pretty penny.
Illegal extensions, IIRC, generally were set up not to ring, since
AT&T tested for them remotely by how much resistance (or something
along those lines) was detected when a house's phone rang.
Right. Impedence. I remember those days.
Eventually (I think after the AT&T breakup), property owners got
ownership of the wiring inside their buildings. (Albeit with dire
warnings from the local phone company that if anything went wrong
inside the house, they'd have to pay to fix it... unless they paid
a monthly fee to the local Bell to cover a repair service. Since
phone wiring problems were pretty rare, this became a profit center
for the Baby Bells.)
I remember they charged me this monthly fee without my knowledge or
consent, and I had to argue pretty hard to get it taken off.
I wonder how many of the numerous extra charges on my current phone
bill, which seem to breed like cockroaches, I could get taken off if I
were to argue hard enough. For instance why am I billed a "city tax"
when I don't live in a city? And what the heck is a "right-of-way fee"?
--
Keith F. Lynch - http://keithlynch.net/
Please see http://keithlynch.net/email.html before emailing me.
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: A Glaring Lack of the Obvious
- From: Garrett Wollman
- Re: A Glaring Lack of the Obvious
- From: Jasper Janssen
- Re: A Glaring Lack of the Obvious
- Prev by Date: Re: Idle conjecture
- Next by Date: Re: Classical music, anyone?
- Previous by thread: Re: A Glaring Lack of the Obvious
- Next by thread: Re: A Glaring Lack of the Obvious
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
