sjr@m-net.ann-arbor.mi.us (Sander J. Rabinowitz) (11/14/90)
I wonder how any TELECOM Digest readers might react to the following: For the last five months, my Dad's telephone bill included a statement urging him to switched to a measured local service (i.e. first 50 calls are free with the remaining calls being charged). Presently, for a fixed monthly fee, unlimited local calls are allowed. The statement also reads something like this (these are not Michigan Bell's exact words): "As a free service to you, we have kept track of the number of local calls you've made this month so you can see if you save money with our measured service. This month, you made -0- local calls--therefore, you would have saved $3.44 this month had you used our other plan." Now I KNOW for each of the last five months, more than 50 local calls per month were made on that line. (I made many of them myself. =) Meanwhile, my own telephone bill doesn't have that message, even though my line also has the unlimited calling feature. Is this something for the local public service commission to look at? It seems like a harmless computer glitch, but I can't shake the feeling that something fishy is going on here. Sander J. Rabinowitz | !sander@attmail.com | +1 313 478 6358 Farmington Hills, Mich. | -OR- sjr@mcimail.com | 8-)
john@bovine.ati.com (John Higdon) (11/17/90)
"Sander J. Rabinowitz" <sjr@m-net.ann-arbor.mi.us> writes: > "As a free service to you, we have kept track of the number of local > calls you've made this month so you can see if you save money with our > measured service. This month, you made -0- local calls--therefore, > you would have saved $3.44 this month had you used our other plan." This is very scary and you should be concerned. Most telcos have discovered that PUCs and equivalents are most reluctant to allow the summary discontinuance of unmeasured residence service, so they use a more sophisticated approach these days. Step one involves switching as many people over to measured as possible. Reps are primed to push measured service as a way of saving money. To this end, in areas that offer both measured and unmeasured residence service, the pricing is set up to make measured as attractive to as many as possible. One approach is to use a generous allowance for measured service. Another is to price unmeasured in the stratosphere. Then, when a majority of customers have measured service, the telco goes to the PUC and argues that unmeasured service is no longer in real demand and that it would have minor reactions to its discontinuance. At some point, the PUC gives in and unmeasured service goes away. The first subsequent action by telco is to remove the allowance. This is easy, since it is not technically a rate increase. Then the monthly rate for measured becomes as high as the former unmeasured rate and telco has what it wants: every bit of facility usage paid for. > Now I KNOW for each of the last five months, more than 50 local calls > per month were made on that line. (I made many of them myself. =) > Meanwhile, my own telephone bill doesn't have that message, even > though my line also has the unlimited calling feature. Events have led me to believe that telcos (at least Pac*Bell) do not have a foolproof way of monitoring local traffic on individual lines. On more than one occasion, I have had measured lines that are NEVER used for local outgoing and have large Zone 1 usage ticketed. Calls to the business office result in the rep freely removing the calls ("what do you think the usage was, Mr. Higdon?"). This does not cause me to have a great deal of confidence in local metering. > Is this something for the local public service commission to look at? > It seems like a harmless computer glitch, but I can't shake the > feeling that something fishy is going on here. You betcha. You may be headed down the slippery slope of measured-only service. Watch out! John Higdon | P. O. Box 7648 | +1 408 723 1395 john@bovine.ati.com | San Jose, CA 95150 | M o o !
Tad.Cook@beaver.cs.washington.edu (11/23/90)
In article <68911@bu.edu.bu.edu>, john@bovine.ati.com (John Higdon) writes: > "Sander J. Rabinowitz" <sjr@m-net.ann-arbor.mi.us> writes: > > "As a free service to you, we have kept track of the number of local > > calls you've made this month so you can see if you save money with our > > measured service. This month, you made -0- local calls--therefore, > > you would have saved $3.44 this month had you used our other plan." > This is very scary and you should be concerned. Most telcos have > discovered that PUCs and equivalents are most reluctant to allow the > summary discontinuance of unmeasured residence service, so they use a > more sophisticated approach these days. > > Is this something for the local public service commission to look at? > > It seems like a harmless computer glitch, but I can't shake the > > feeling that something fishy is going on here. > You betcha. You may be headed down the slippery slope of measured-only > service. Watch out! John Higdon said that the telco could get enough folks to switch their residential service to declare that the unlimited calling option was no longer in the public interest. I think it could happen a little differently. In most places where there is a measured service option, it is priced so that most residential customers would pay less by switching over to measured service without ever changing their calling patterns. So if the telco starts pushing measured service to these low usage customers and a bunch of them switched, suddenly they are getting less revenue for the same service, which gives them the right to go to the PUC and ask for a rate increase for the unlimited calling customers. Once this happens, there could be a snowball effect, where the telco gets more and more customers to switch, based upon higher and higher rates for unlimited calling. This further erodes the rate base, causing a situation where eventually nearly everyone except truly high usage residential customers are on measured service. So the telco gets a de-facto mandatory measured service, without any change in the tariff. Tad Cook Seattle, WA Packet: KT7H @ N7HFZ.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