deej@bellcore.bellcore.com (David Lewis) (09/11/89)
In article <telecom-v09i0353m01@vector.dallas.tx.us>, phil@goldhill.com writes: > Is there a distinction between "common carriers" and "utilities" like > the electric and gas companies? I was under the belief that electric > companies charge differing rates depending upon consumption, when the > consumption occured, etc... A common carrier is obliged to carry (whatever it is that it's carrying) for any customer at the same price. It can (generally) distinguish between *types* of customers (e.g. business versus residential), but can not charge different rates to two given customers of the same type. Like, it can't charge you $12 a month for one residential line and charge Pat $24 a month because he moderates this Digest that's always badmouthing the phone guys... :-) Of course, this is a one paragraph description of common carrier law, which has its origins somewhere back in the 16th century, so there are a lot of nuances I haven't touched on... > If this is the case that there are tiered cost scales for other utilities > then I see no reason why a business couldn't be charged less/more for > a particular telecommunications service. A "business", yes. A *particular* business, no. The phone companies could get away with charging businesses $5 a pop for DA and providing it to residences free of charge -- but they couldn't get away with providing it free of charge to anyone except this telemarketing company (since we always seem to pick on telemarketers even more than the phone guys...) that called them 400 times last month... Although they probably *could* get away with providing, say, three calls to DA a month free of charge and levying a $n fee for any more (which, in fact, some telcos do). -- David G Lewis ...!bellcore!nvuxr!deej "If this is paradise, I wish I had a lawnmower."
wd4oqc@kd4nc.UUCP (John DeArmond) (09/13/89)
nvuxr!deej@bellcore.bellcore.com (David Lewis) writes: >A "business", yes. A *particular* business, no. The phone companies >could get away with charging businesses $5 a pop for DA and providing it >to residences free of charge -- but they couldn't get away with >providing it free of charge to anyone except this telemarketing company Actually, they could very easily charge telemarketers or any other phone abusers by simplying classifying the group appropriately. It's the same logic used in some areas to charge amateur radio phone patches commercial rates. They simply lump the ham club in with other small businesses. Another example is how 976- numbers are currently being treated. I personally hate to see 976- service as a class disparraged by a few low-rent operators but that's what's happened. Even if the courts were to overrule a classification based on current law or regulation, it would be easy enough to change the offending law given enough public will. John