lmg@cbnewsh.att.com (05/24/90)
In article <7895@accuvax.nwu.edu> covert@covert.enet.dec.com (John R. Covert 17-May-1990 1012) writes: >There is _no_ long-distance add-on. The only relationship that the >access charge has to long distance is that it replaces the subsidy >that AT&T used to pay local phone companies out of the old, higher, >long distance rates. Now that the Baby Bells have grown up, does anyone see a chance of the access charge being repealed? Larry Geary: 74017.3065@compuserve.com lmg@mtqub.att.com
macy@cwjcc.ins.cwru.edu (05/26/90)
>Now that the Baby Bells have grown up, does anyone see a chance of the >access charge being repealed? You are really asking: will the LEC's willingly give up this source of revenue? One that they do not have to justify before the state PUC's. one that they only have to calculate in the most cursory of manners to the FCC? One that the FCC has stipulated as fundemental to current rate structures? One that benefits the LEC's without creating any controversy or negative publicity? To put it mildly: I think not. IMHO, only a complete revamp of national telecommunications policy accompanied by a redesign of mandated LEC accounting procedures would ever allow this to happen. Telecom policy is not a priority of anyone in government, at least anyone I know of who might be able to make it happen. Mark me down as skeptical.... Macy M. Hallock, Jr. macy@ncoast.org uunet!aablue!fmsystm!macy F M Systems, Inc. {uunet|backbone}!usenet.ins.cwru.edu!ncoast!fmsystm!macy 150 Highland Drive Voice: +1 216 723-3000 Ext 251 Fax: +1 216 723-3223 Medina, Ohio 44256 USA Cleveland:273-3000 Akron:239-4994 (Dial 251 at tone) (Please note that our system name is "fmsystm" with no "e", .NOT. "fmsystem")