"Michael C. Berch" <mcb@presto.ig.com> (05/25/90)
In the referenced article, CER2520@ritvax.bitnet (Curtis E. Reid) writes: > I heard a disturbing news that AT&T may consider removing the TDD Long > Distance Toll Call discounts when AT&T does its own billing. The > rationale for this is that no other services like MCI or Sprint offer > this discount so why should AT&T. > AT&T has a strong loyal base of handicapped and disabled customers. > If something like this discount goes away, I'm sure that other > services for handicapped customers will also go away, too. > Can any TELECOM readers comment on this? AT&T, don't consider > removing TDD discounts!! Please don't take this the wrong way, but what is the justification for discounts for TDD customers? I can see doing it if the bandwidth of TDD devices is so much smaller than voice that deaf people are effectively paying more for less effective use of the same circuit for the same amount of time as hearing people, but I have not heard that argument brought up. (And in which case I think there is a good argument for the discount, or at least a special TDD rate structure.) I don't object to AT&T's providing special services to TDD users that cost AT&T extra but are required in order to make TDD service work (e.g., TDD operator/trouble reporting services) but I don't see the reason for giving a certain class of people a discount simply because of a disability (or because of their race, religion, ethnic origin, etc.). Discounts for the economically disadvantaged are another case entirely, and while I do not think that general ratepayers (or telco shareholders) should have to subsidize "lifeline" service, telcos offer such services because they are required to by state regulators. I assume there is no such requirement for AT&T, MCI, Sprint, or others providing LD service but not dial tone. Michael C. Berch mcb@presto.ig.com / uunet!presto.ig.com!mcb / ames!bionet!mcb
Ken Harrenstien <KLH@nic.ddn.mil> (05/26/90)
>Please don't take this the wrong way, but what is the justification >for discounts for TDD customers? I can see doing it if the bandwidth >of TDD devices is so much smaller than voice that deaf people are >effectively paying more for less effective use of the same circuit for >the same amount of time as hearing people, but I have not heard that >argument brought up. (And in which case I think there is a good >argument for the discount, or at least a special TDD rate structure.) Indeed, this is the rationale. The standard figure in the literature I've seen has been a 5:1 ratio; that is, a conversation via TDD takes five times as long as a voice call to convey the same information. The discount, however, does NOT follow this ratio. I'm not sure exactly what it amounts to -- the one time I tried to get an explanation out of a telco billing person, I was told it just meant the lowest possible rate was applied (ie night rate) instead of the normal rate. The bill always simply says "DN". So it doesn't do me any good to schedule my calls for the evening instead of the daytime. One other aspect of this discount, at least here in California, is that it ONLY applies to calls made from a single line identified as belonging to a TDD subscriber. I cannot have two lines and have the discount on both. It also does NOT apply to calls I make with a calling card, or calls I charge to that number, or even calls made to that number. So in my opinion it's a pretty feeble gesture. You'd think the simple thing to do would be to just charge everything normally and factor the total by .50 or whatever, but no. Oh yeah, while I'm ranting about bills, any long-distance (but intrastate) charges I incur when using the California Relay Service are printed as calls to "Cal Relay" (instead of, say "San Jose" or "Sacramento"), even though they show the correct destination number. So it is a little harder for me to figure out where I was really calling. As for interstate calls, the Relay service can't call out of state -- no calls, no billing problem. Gee, maybe we should carry this idea to its logical extreme ... no telco, no telco hassles! I haven't heard anything about removing the discount, but I imagine it would be done quietly in any case. Someone did tell me a couple days ago about a radio report that AT&T would be introducing a nationwide TDD relay service, but I haven't seen anything in print, so this may only be a rumor or a misinterpretation. Ken
ndallen@uunet.uu.net (Nigel Allen) (05/26/90)
[speculation that AT&T may eliminate the 50% discount on TDD calls] The rationale for the discount, IMHO, is not that TDD users are economically disadvantaged. It's that TDD calls take longer than corresponding voice calls, so the discount means that a TDD conversation that transmits as much information as a voice call that takes half as long will be changed the same amount. Bell Canada offers a 50% discount on long distance to registered TDD users, and as far as I know, has no plans to eliminate the discount. Of course, it would require CRTC approval to do so. Nigel Allen 52 Manchester Avenue voice telephone (416) 535-8916 Toronto, Ontario M6G 1V3 fax (416) 978-7552 Canada
"Yossi (Joel" <joel%TECHUNIX.BITNET@cunyvm.cuny.edu> (05/27/90)
In article <8241@accuvax.nwu.edu> mcb@presto.ig.com (Michael C. Berch) writes: >In the referenced article, CER2520@ritvax.bitnet (Curtis E. Reid) writes: >> I heard a disturbing news that AT&T may consider removing the TDD Long >> Distance Toll Call discounts when AT&T does its own billing. [...] >> Can any TELECOM readers comment on this? AT&T, don't consider >> removing TDD discounts!! >Please don't take this the wrong way, but what is the justification >for discounts for TDD customers? I can see doing it if the bandwidth >of TDD devices is so much smaller than voice that deaf people are >effectively paying more for less effective use of the same circuit for >the same amount of time as hearing people, but I have not heard that >argument brought up. (And in which case I think there is a good >argument for the discount, or at least a special TDD rate structure.) The rational is that the same phone call should cost the same to everyone. For the same reason that folks with old switch equipment aren't charged extra for the additional upkeep costs, TDD users shouldn't be charged extra just because they have to converse at 48 baud. Also, at least in the past, AT&T has been a service-oriented business. They don't charge for wrong numbers, for busy signals, calls that were never completed, etc. They regularly absorb some operating costs to keep their services attractive and equitable. Joel (joel@techunix.technion.ac.il -or- joel@techunix.BITNET)
rmadison@euler.berkeley.edu (Linc Madison) (05/28/90)
Having made one TDD-to-TDD call and several TDD-relay calls, I can verify that even with fast typists, TDD calls have much slower throughput than voice. Speaking, I can about keep pace with text rolling across my CRT at 1200 bps and can with a little effort almost keep up with 2400 bps. Someone quoted TDD standards as being 45 bps; even if it's old TTY at 110 bps, it's still slow. My roommate who heard me on a relay call once asked, "why...........were............you.............talking.......... .......so..........slowly.....?" (BTW, in case you're curious, I can type about 120 wpm, which is well into the range of professional typists, and TDD was still painfully slow. For a comparison, try a "talk" connection on UNIX, and then halve it.) Linc Madison = rmadison@euler.berkeley.edu
karl@ddsw1.mcs.com (Karl Denninger) (05/31/90)
In article <8338@accuvax.nwu.edu> "Yossi (Joel" <joel%TECHUNIX. BITNET@cunyvm.cuny.edu> writes: X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 10, Issue 391, Message 2 of 12 >>Please don't take this the wrong way, but what is the justification >>for discounts for TDD customers? >The rational is that the same phone call should cost the same to >everyone. For the same reason that folks with old switch equipment >aren't charged extra for the additional upkeep costs, TDD users >shouldn't be charged extra just because they have to converse at 48 >baud. Well, by that reasoning I should pay less to use a 300 baud modem than a 2400 baud one, or heaven forbid, a 19,200 baud one (ie: Telebit). Of course, that is not the case. Also of course, no one FORCES a deaf person to use a TDD to communicate. They can purchase a personal computer with a higher speed modem, compose their text offline if they wish, and transmit to other similarly equipped people. If the additional bandwidth is an issue, this is something these people should explore. Note that I can easily read at 2400 baud; that is not difficult, I do it every evening when logging in and reading the news from home. Thus, I can effectively make use of 2400 baud transmission in >real time<. I am willing to bet that most deaf people can make use of at least 1200 baud if not 2400 or more, should they be motivated to do so. The question becomes: Should a public utility be able to subsidise the use of a service by a disadvantaged (insert favorite of handicapped, minority, etc) group through the rates of those who are not as disadvantaged? That I don't have a good answer for. However, the issue is not bandwidth, nor is it the information able to be transmitted per unit of time. It could be a matter of perceived public service, or any one of a number of other factors. Karl Denninger (karl@ddsw1.MCS.COM, <well-connected>!ddsw1!karl) Public Access Data Line: [+1 708 808-7300], Voice: [+1 708 808-7200] Macro Computer Solutions, Inc. "Quality Solutions at a Fair Price"