leichter@oddjob.uucp (LEICHTER-JERRY@CS.YALE.EDU) (07/15/90)
[Based on a report in the {New York Times}, Saturday, 14 Jul 1990 -
Page 24]
The saga of New York Telephone's request for a rate increase
continues, with no joy in sight for them. Rates were frozen for three
years back in 1987. With the freeze set to expire at the end of this
year, NY Tel requested a $445 million rate increase. That was
rejected back in March. NY Tel promptly turned around and requested a
$919 million rate increase. Now the Public Service Commission's
staff has recommended not just rejecting that request - it has instead
recommended that rates be CUT by $81 million.
The final decision is up to the PSC, which often uses its staff's
reports as the basis for its decisions.
The PSC staff reported that as part of its investigations it uncovered
evidence that NY Tel had "failed to properly account for the costs of
certain of its deregulated operations." It further found that some of
its cable equipment had been neglected "to the detriment of those
customers relying on more traditional telephone services."
There have been a lot of allegations of such problems swirling around
NY Tel and its parent, Nynex. In fact, NY Tel proposed its earlier
increase of $445 million as part of a package deal to settle claims of
various fraudulent practices. The deal was rejected, and NY Tel
turned around and said "OK, no deal, here's what we REALLY think we
are entitled to." The 1987 rate freeze itself was the result of a
settlement of this general sort, the details of which I don't recall.
Nynex was fined $1.4 million by the FCC in February after an audit
found $118.5 million in reported overcharges to its subsidiaries.
Last week, {The Wall Street Journal} reported that Nynex purchasing
managers, as the Times put it, "cavorted at Florida conventions with
suppliers and may have then increased company purchases from those
suppliers. The Journal also reported, and [sources at] the [PSC]
confirmed, that women were hired to entertain the guests at those
conventions." Nynex has reported taking "corrective action" since the
incident, including firing two employees.
Jerryjohn@bovine.ati.com (John Higdon) (07/16/90)
Jerry Leichter (LEICHTER-JERRY@CS.YALE.EDU) <leichter@oddjob.uucp> writes: > The saga of New York Telephone's request for a rate increase > continues, with no joy in sight for them. Rates were frozen for three > years back in 1987. With the freeze set to expire at the end of this > year, NY Tel requested a $445 million rate increase. That was > rejected back in March. NY Tel promptly turned around and requested a > $919 million rate increase. Even though we west coast cretins are forced to watch "Primetime Live", "Saturday Night Live", and "Nightline" via tape delay from New York (they even tape "live" events here and show them to us three hours later!), we have an advantage of being able to see a window on our own future. Whatever happens to Nynex starts rumbling across the US on a four to seven year timetable. Last year, you'll recall, Pac*Bell was given the keys to the kingdom by the CPUC. In exchange (no pun intended), Pac*Bell would hold off residential rate increases, remove charges for touch tone, and widen the Zone 1 (local) calling area. The latter two have yet to come to pass. Now we see that the "stabilization" of rates will be a cruel joke. In 1992 or whenever, Pac*Bell will probably stomp into the CPUC with a demand for a 100% increase in residential rates, proposals to drop the last of unlimited local calling, and other pocket-fattening proposals as they deem appropriate at the time. If ever there was a utility that has run amok over deregulation, Pac*Bell it it. In a way, GTE's lack of innovation is a plus. Pac*Bell has shown no end of inventiveness in its ability to extract large amounts of money from its customers, particularly in the areas of 976/900, small business, Centrex, and short-haul toll calls. John Higdon | P. O. Box 7648 | +1 408 723 1395 john@bovine.ati.com | San Jose, CA 95150 | M o o !
hale@ucsd.edu (Bob Hale) (07/21/90)
In article <9756@accuvax.nwu.edu> John Higdon <john@bovine.ati.com> writes: >Last year, you'll recall, Pac*Bell was given the keys to the kingdom >by the CPUC. In exchange (no pun intended), Pac*Bell would hold off >residential rate increases, remove charges for touch tone, and widen >the Zone 1 (local) calling area. The latter two have yet to come to >pass. Our most recent Pac*Bell bill had an announcement that charges for touch tone were eliminated. Bob Hale ...!ucsd!btree!hale 619-535-3234 ...!btree!hale@ucsd.edu
john@bovine.ati.com (John Higdon) (07/21/90)
Bob Hale <btree!hale@ucsd.edu> writes: > Our most recent Pac*Bell bill had an announcement that charges for > touch tone were eliminated. Then why are they still appearing on your bill? Read that announcement again. It says that Pac*Bell is holding discussions on how it will replace the revenue from the dropping of the TT charge. Pac*Bell is still some distance away from actually dropping the charge (you know -- so that it doesn't show up in your itemized list of services anymore.) Until that happens, it's not dropped. John Higdon | P. O. Box 7648 | +1 408 723 1395 john@bovine.ati.com | San Jose, CA 95150 | M o o !