hes@ccvr1.cc.ncsu.edu (Henry E. Schaffer) (11/13/90)
In article <14594@accuvax.nwu.edu> Jack.Winslade@f666.n285.z1. fidonet.org writes: X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 10, Issue 811, Message 6 of 11 >o Unbundling of charges and nickle-diming. Contrary to the fact that > yes, it may USE certain resources, since day one, it's been > CUSTOMARY in the telephone industry NOT to charge for such things > as busy signals, no-answers, call setup time, etc. ... >[Moderator's Note: ... I'd look for >the day to come when telco begins charging for incomplete call >attempts just like some of the cell guys do now, saying it uses up >resources to attempt to make the connection, etc. PAT] There has been a custom, rooted in history, of not charging for events which could be the fault of the phone company. This saves an enormous amount of controversy and wear and tear on good will of the telco. Dialing and receiving a reorder does indicate use of some telco resources, but also may indicate a telco problem (e.g., insufficient resources, fault in switching, ... .) Charging for this would cause resentment far beyond the amount of revenue it would generate. An example of this is the public attitude towards charges for no answer (due to lack of supervision available to some of the LD providers.) Because of this I predict that the telco and cell providers will all charge only for services actually (sucessfully) rendered. henry schaffer n c state univ [Moderator's Note: There have been many 'customs rooted in history' where the telcos in general, and the Bell System in particular are concerned. The judge tossed all that out in one fell swoop. History and traditions be damned, you might say. In the whole industry nothing works the way it used to. I'd like to think you are correct; it is very important than you be correct ... but I think we are going to see more and more rip-offs of an unsophisticated public. I do not mean Digest readers; I mean John Q. Public. PAT]