cyberoid@milton.u.washington.edu (Robert Jacobson) (02/21/91)
How sad that people who rely on the telephone to do their business and make their living choose not to share this resource with the poor who need phones just to stay in touch. When we were preparing legislation to undergird continued universal telephone service in California (which has since passed legal muster), we examined telephone cost tradeoffs and found unequivocal evidence of very large savings on the part of business customers (particularly those with interLATA dealings) at the expense of local service, which has had dumped upon it loads of "unfair taxes" in the form of FCC and state-imposed "access charges." In fact, the annual income redistribution, from small, local customer to large, usually interLATA and interstate customer, is about $6 BILLION. I know this doesn't matter to hard-nosed types who want to hoard their savings, to further control the lives of others in ways that benefit themselves, but the surcharges discussed in Illinois, to keep poor people on the line, don't even approach the disproportionate income transfers already in place. From poor to rich is how divestiture is working out, and you might almost think it planned. Bob Jacobson
nesel@elxsi.dfrf.nasa.gov (02/22/91)
These surcharges are a form a charity, and in my opinion should therefore be entirely voluntary. In addition, as a charity, these donations should be subject to commonly accepted accounting practices as applied to charitable institutions. I want a statement at the end of each year from the utility, summarizing my charitable contributions. I'd also want a statement summarizing how ALL contributions were invested and spent, and the percent of my contribution that went to G & A overhead, advertising, etc. By the way, if I choose NOT to contribute to this charity, will I still be allowed phone service? Is this charitable contribution a mandatory condition for receiving service? Mike Nesel
sichermn@beach.csulb.edu (Jeff Sicherman) (02/23/91)
In article <telecom11.150.2@eecs.nwu.edu> seals@uncecs.edu (Larry W. Seals) writes: > In this day and age, it seems like those things that used to be > privileges are now being considered as rights. In addition, those who > can afford the privileges are being asked to subsidize these "rights" > via hidden charges or "access fees". I pay higher insurance premiums > because of the uninsured motorists, even though (in NC) you aren't > supposed to be issued a license or plates without proof of insurance > (and while driving is a PRIVILEGE, some regard it as a God given > right). This thread has arisen before, in fact I even responded to the previous incarnation, but then political arguments are never settled. I'm not sure about you're terminology. I doubt that at phone service is being claimed to be a 'right'. All the discussion that I've heard is as to whther it's good public policy to deny people access to things that are an essential part of modern life. In the case of the handicapped, the issue is that the design of the equipment and/or the system is discriminatory. I also question your argument about 'hidden' fees. The utility subsidization fees that I've seen (in California) are all right there on the bill. > There seems to be that same mentality at work here. Just because the > telephone is ubiquitous does not mean that the service it renders has > become a right available to anyone for asking. Nobody gets it 'just for the asking', any more than you do. They get it because they request service and then must qualify for the subsidy based upon established need. > Given the number of goods and services I pay for on which there are > these hidden subsidies for those who want the privilege without the > cost, how far are we down the road to a socialist society without even > knowing it? Life is full of hidden subsidies. The number of things that I subsidize with *my* taxes that I don't necessarily approve of would fill the digest for a week. The number of ways the phone company subsidizes services that don't benefit me is also immense (see other digest sources). I think we know how far we are 'down the raod to socialism' we are. Just societies don't have to be pure based upon your economic philosphies. Perhaps you should read Les Miserables (again?). > Anyway, though it sounds cynical, there are phone booths and collect > calls and other methods of reaching out and touching someone without > reaching out and toucing my wallet. You're right, it sounds cynical, not to mention cruel. That is a much more expensive way of communicating than the small service charges that are paid and would exacerbate the poverty conditions, requiring higher public payments (but then, you disapprove of those too). Maybe the agencies that these people must communicate with should start accepting all those expensive collect calls, boosting their expenses. > Keep your flammage - you may need it to stay warm... Having a different opinion, even a different set of values is not flammage. [Moderator's Note: With these two messages we must close this thread which is becoming less telecom-related with each posting. Thanks. PAT]
john@zygot.ati.com (John Higdon) (02/23/91)
Will Martin <wmartin@stl-06sima.army.mil> writes: > Can anyone explain why there is such a brouhaha, what with > class-action suits and vast publicity, over this lousy *15-cent* > surcharge, when the $3.50-a-line "FCC-mandated-access-charge", which > would better be termed a "Fancier-cars-and-better-country-club- > memberships-for-telco-executives-charge", gets imposed with > practically *no* public outcry? Well, how about the "higher rates for everyone that can't go anywhere else than the local phone company so that those big businesses who COULD bypass won't because the rates are kept low"? What, you say? In a recent bill insert Pac*Bell announced that rates for residence and small business would have to go up. (Actually, the "rate surcharge" will be diddled with.) Why? So that rates could be REDUCED for big customers. The reasoning is that big customers have the ability to go elsewhere for telephone service (known as "bypass"). So to keep that from happening, Pac*Bell will offer deals they cannot refuse. But to keep revenues flat, Pac*Bell will have to charge the rest of us more. Of course we cannot go elsewhere for OUR telephone service so we are just stuck. This is supposed to be a GOOD THING (tm) since "it keeps overall rates lower for everyone". You heard right. Only Pac*Bell could say with a straight face, "Your rates are going up so that your telephone costs can remain low." I know it gives me a warm feeling inside to know that I am helping to subsidize the telephone service of customers such as the City of San Francisco and Kaiser Permanente. John Higdon | P. O. Box 7648 | +1 408 723 1395 john@zygot.ati.com | San Jose, CA 95150 | M o o !
tad@ssc.UUCP (Tad Cook) (02/28/91)
In article <telecom11.150.2@eecs.nwu.edu>, seals@uncecs.edu (Larry W. Seals) writes: (Stuff deleted) > There seems to be that same mentality at work here. Just because the > telephone is ubiquitous does not mean that the service it renders has > become a right available to anyone for asking. > Given the number of goods and services I pay for on which there are > these hidden subsidies for those who want the privilege without the > cost, how far are we down the road to a socialist society without even > knowing it? Larry seems to forget the concept of "universal service." That is why all kinds of cross-subsidies were set up in telephone service. The idea being that the telephone network is only really useful when the majority of the population is connected. "Hidden subsidies for those who want privilege without the cost" ?? Why should communications only be for those who can afford ISDN, Caller ID and modems? What's the matter with my poorer neighbors getting access to 9-1-1 ?? Tad Cook Seattle, WA Packet: KT7H @ N7ENT.#WWA.WA.USA.NA Phone: 206/527-4089 MCI Mail: 3288544 Telex: 6503288544 MCI UW USENET:...uw-beaver!sumax!amc-gw!ssc!tad or, tad@ssc.UUCP [Moderator's Note: It is intereesting that you phrased your final paragraph in the way you did. On a call-in talk show today, the host was discussing this issue with a man who was calling in on his cellular handheld phone while riding in the back seat of a taxicab yet. The host posed a similar question: should communications be only for those of you who ride home to the suburbs in a cab every night talking on a cellular phone? Why can't poor people have a phone when they need to call the police or the doctor? And the caller's response, which has to be an all-time classic, taking nerve if I do say so myself: "Well, they probably could afford a basic single line phone if they would quit buying so many Illinois State Lottery tickets every month!" Jeesh! Not only does he not want to assist in paying for their 'basic phone'; he wants to steal their dreams also! :) The host's response: "You know something mister? You've got a mean, very stingy disposition. I'd hate to have to ask you for anything." PAT]
dave@westmark.westmark.com (Dave Levenson) (03/08/91)
It seems that when the US Government applies a federal exise tax on
what they consider to be a luxury, they tax telephone service.
When Illinois decides who should subsidize whom, telephone service is
essential.
The point made by the IBT customers, I think, is that if it is proper
for low-income citizens to be subsidized by other citizens, why make
the telephone company the conduit for this? It wouldn't be that the
state of Illinois thinks an additional state tax might be politically
unpopular, now, would it?
Dave Levenson Internet: dave@westmark.com
Westmark, Inc. UUCP: {uunet | rutgers | att}!westmark!dave
Warren, NJ, USA AT&T Mail: !westmark!dave
Voice: 908 647 0900 Fax: 908 647 6857