dgp0@bunny.gte.com (Dennis Pratt) (01/23/91)
In article <16189@accuvax.nwu.edu> Wes.Williams@f39.n382.z1. fidonet.org (Wes Williams) writes: > For those of you unaware, MA has recently passed a State law to bring > this into active state wide use over the next few years, where only > some cities have been previously served by nonenhanced 911. I have found it interesting that there has been little discussion of NYNEX's political success pushing the payment of Enhanced 911 onto Directories Assistance users. Enhanced 911 is an important system; it allows police to identify where the call is coming from and it allows correct routing of the call to the emergency unit most able geographically to respond. Where I have a bone to pick is the proposed method of charging for E-911. Instead of charging the 911 caller, (allowing users of the system to directly pay for the increased functionality), NYNEX has convinced the politicians to have non-users of 911, specifically 411 users, pay for this system. I haven't heard what happens if the revenues generated by over-charging 411 users is greater than the costs of E-911. My guess is that NYNEX has adequate accounting proceedures to ensure there will be no excess. I further fear this is simply a wedge with which NYNEX can add on additional charges to Directory Assistance (basically rewarding them for keeping their White Pages out-of-date.) If an E-911 call cost $5 - $10, I do not believe that would stop people from using the system. I'm not clear why the politicians want to hide the costs of this service. Other alternative payment schemes are possible. Take directly out of taxes. Take up a state-wide collection for this worthwhile charity. Provide "income assistance" for those who use E-911 but who cannot pay the higher price of the enhanced service. But why tax Directory users to transfer the money to E-911 users? What I do not like is the separation of the user and the payment. I guess I do not trust either NYNEX or MA politicians. But given recent history, should I? Dennis Pratt Disclaimer: My company doesn't know anything about this.
ted@blia.sharebase.com (Ted Marshall) (01/25/91)
In article <16341@accuvax.nwu.edu>, dgp0@bunny.gte.com (Dennis Pratt) writes: > Where I have a bone to pick is the proposed method of charging for > E-911. Instead of charging the 911 caller, (allowing users of the > system to directly pay for the increased functionality), NYNEX has > convinced the politicians to have non-users of 911, specifically 411 > users, pay for this system. I believe that most area do some sort of ganeral charge for 911 procurement and support. Most areas, including No. California, put a general surcharge on the phone bills. I hadn't heard of a 411 surcharge. > If an E-911 call cost $5 - $10, I do not believe that would stop > people from using the system. [...] I disagree. If I look out my window and see a fire across the street and I know that I'll get charged $5.00 for calling 911, I'll call the fire department directly or figure that someone else will call it in. 911 should be designed so that if you are reporting what truly looks like an emergency, you have no reason not to call it in. Ted Marshall ted@airplane.sharebase.com ShareBase Corp., 14600 Winchester Blvd, Los Gatos, Ca 95030 (408)378-7000 The opinions expressed above are those of the poster and not his employer. [Moderator's Note: That was precisely the argument made here when there was discussion of who should pay for 911 service. The City of Chicago took the position that nothing should stand in the way of someone making a legitimate call for emergency help; and certainly not the fear that they would not be able to pay for it later. PAT]
peterm@sumax.seattleu.edu (Peter Marshall) (01/25/91)
Dennis Pratt's 1/22 post on financing statewide E911 in MA presents some interesting questions that are likely not limited to the MA example. At the same time, this look at experience in one state does not address other issues in E911 statewide system development that have been noticed in other states. To what extent are states moving in a similar direction? What issues or problems have been observed? What is the magnitude of "going statewide" at present? What might account for common patterns on a national level? Peter Marshall
dave@westmark.westmark.com (Dave Levenson) (01/26/91)
In article <16377@accuvax.nwu.edu>, halcyon!peterm@sumax.seattleu.edu (Peter Marshall) writes: > To what extent are states moving in a similar direction? What issues > or problems have been observed? What is the magnitude of "going > statewide" at present? What might account for common patterns on a > national level? In New Jersey, for reasons never explained to me, the 7% state sales tax did not apply to telephones. As of three years ago, it suddenly did. The state justified taxing telephones by stating that the revenue derived from this tax would finance the state-wide implementation of E911 service. Like the Massachusetts directory assistance charge, this causes all telephone users (really, all telephone owners) to subsidize the emergency service. Is this fair? A visitor from out of state who never bought a telephone in New Jersey may still call 911 from a public telephone in the state. But somehow, I prefer not to have to worry about payment (finding coins, etc) in a time of emergency. Directory assistance is (and was already) charged for, so that's going somewhere else. 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