john@gatech.edu (John DeArmond) (08/22/89)
In article <telecom-v09i0315m02@vector.dallas.tx.us> zygot!john@apple.com (John Higdon) writes: >I am the last person to stick up for "the Phone Company". But I'm sure >you will agree that providing you with phone numbers via information >(or even via directories) costs the provider money, right? >For those occasional events, I am more than willing to pay the fifty cents. > >Why is it fair for the costs of DA to be shared by everyone (which is >what happens when it's "free") when not everyone prefaces every other >call with a call to Directory Assistance? It's fair for everyone to share the cost for DA for the same reason it's fair for all to share the cost of things like the inside plant, cable, right-of-ways, telephone poles and so on. IF we wanted to be very strict with this concept of only those who use a service pay, then you would get charged extra if a cable right-of-way was extra expensive or if your trunk was damaged by storms or routing to your house took a few extra taps or the road to your drop box is rough, accelerating the wear on the phone company truck, or the fact that all your extra extensions use extra power from the ring and battery supply and so on ad infinum. No, the concept of universal service is that the costs, sometimes individually extraordinary, are spread across the rate-base so that everybody pays just a little bit. Sure, you may not use DA often but for some others it may be vital. I'll bet you use other free value-added services of the phone company more than the average user. I know that I'm on them frequently to fix problems with my lines that only affect data transmission. Sure I could buy a data-grade line and in fact, they try to push that from time to time. My residential service is surely more expensive than the subscriber who only calls his/her mother once a week. But I don't think any of use REALLY want pay-as-you-go. That some PUCs have allowed the phone company to deviate from the concept of universal service is sad indeed. John De Armond, WD4OQC | Manual? ... What manual ?!? Sales Technologies, Inc. Atlanta, GA | This is Unix, My son, You ...!gatech!stiatl!john **I am the NRA** | just GOTTA Know!!!
john@apple.com (John Higdon) (08/24/89)
In article <telecom-v09i0318m07@vector.dallas.tx.us>, stiatl!john@gatech.edu (John DeArmond) writes: > No, the concept of universal service is that the costs, sometimes > individually > extraordinary, are spread across the rate-base so that everybody pays just > a little bit. Sure, you may not use DA often but for some others it may > be vital. I'll bet you use other free value-added services of the I'm afraid I have to disagree. While I concur with your comments about inside plant and the other incidentals to provide dial tone to different subscribers and equalizing those costs in the spirit of "universal service", DA just isn't one of those things. I have ten residential lines. I get no volume discount; it's $oneline X ten. I have CommstarII (home centrex) at $8.00/line. (Do you suppose it costs them $8.00/month/line to have typed the features in once a long time ago?) Granted, these are "value added services" and I am happily (?) paying for them. My long distance bill is approx. $400/month. By your reasoning, that cost should just be spread over the rate base and let everyone share in the cost. No matter how you look at it DA is an *optional* service. You CAN avoid using it. And let's face it: DA abuse was rampant before charging began. I know people who literally prefaced *every* call with 411 because they couldn't remember numbers and felt that looking them up or writing them down was too much trouble. And remember, those who are disabled can get a waiver on charges. > I know that I'm on them frequently > to fix problems with my lines that only affect data transmission. Sure I > could buy a data-grade line and in fact, they try to push that from time to > time. My residential service is surely more expensive than the subscriber > who only calls his/her mother once a week. But I don't think any of use > REALLY want pay-as-you-go. That some PUCs have allowed the phone company to > deviate from the concept of universal service is sad indeed. Ah, but the concept of universal service only applies to the most "basic" (whatever that means) telephone service. It is quite right and proper for telephone companies to charge for anything more. Quite honestly, if your non-data-grade lines are unsatisfactory for your use and data-grade lines are, then, my friend you are looking for more than basic telephone service and you will have to pay more to get more. I'm not insensitive about this. Five of my lines carry data. But I fortuately live virtually next door to the CO and have never had any problems. If this wasn't the case, I would pay for data-grade if necessary. BTW, I've never thought that Pac*Bell should give me a discount because they don't use much cable to provide my service.:-) -- John Higdon | P. O. Box 7648 | +1 408 723 1395 john@zygot.uucp | San Jose, CA 95150 | M o o !
ellisond@ncar.ucar.edu (Dell Ellison) (08/25/89)
In article <telecom-v09i0318m07@vector.dallas.tx.us>, stiatl!john@gatech.edu (John DeArmond) writes: -> It's fair for everyone to share the cost for DA for the same reason it's -> fair for all to share the cost of things like the inside plant, cable, -> right-of-ways, telephone poles and so on. IF we wanted to be very strict -> with this concept of only those who use a service pay, then you would -> get charged extra if a cable right-of-way was extra expensive or if your -> trunk was damaged by storms or routing to your house took a few extra taps -> or the road to your drop box is rough, accelerating the wear on the phone -> company truck, or the fact that all your extra extensions use extra power -> from the ring and battery supply and so on ad infinum. With this kind of attitude, you might as well include LD (Long Distance) charges as well! Then those of us who call our mother on the other side of the world can do so every five minutes and not have to worry about the great cost. (Heavy Sarcasm) Those that are too lazy or for whatever reason, should pay for their using directory assistance. We don't all need to pay for them.
john@gatech.edu (John DeArmond) (08/27/89)
In article <telecom-v09i0324m09@vector.dallas.tx.us> asuvax!gtephx!who! ellisond@ncar.ucar.edu (Dell Ellison) writes: >In article <telecom-v09i0318m07@vector.dallas.tx.us>, stiatl!john@gatech.edu >(John DeArmond) writes: >-> It's fair for everyone to share the cost for DA for the same reason it's >-> fair for all to share the cost of things like the inside plant, cable, >With this kind of attitude, you might as well include LD (Long Distance) >charges as well! Then those of us who call our mother on the other side >of the world can do so every five minutes and not have to worry about >the great cost. (Heavy Sarcasm) Actually, a good case could be made for this. Inter-LATA "long distance" is de-facto wrapped into our bills here in the Atlanta area. This is supposedly the largest toll-free lata in the nation. Our phone bills for basic service are a bit higher than some other areas but I don't have to worry about paying long distance to call 20 miles to an adjacent city as I did in the last town I lived in. Pretty nice really. >Those that are too lazy or for whatever reason, should pay for their using >directory assistance. We don't all need to pay for them. Hmmm. I always got a kick out of that line. Yep, everybody that uses DA is a lazy slob including those that: * are blind. * are in a phone booth without a book. * are in an office without a book. * are looking for a new number. * are trying to find a number correction. Yep, let's just call them slobs and nail them for each use of DA. That's the ticket. Makes about as much sense as did the idea of tearing the phone company up. John -- John De Armond, WD4OQC | Manual? ... What manual ?!? Sales Technologies, Inc. Atlanta, GA | This is Unix, My son, You ...!gatech!stiatl!john **I am the NRA** | just GOTTA Know!!!
goldstein@delni.enet.dec.com (08/29/89)
In article <telecom-v09i0329m03@vector.dallas.tx.us>, stiatl!john@gatech.edu (John DeArmond) writes... >...Yep, everybody that >uses DA is a lazy slob including those that: > >* are blind. >* are in a phone booth without a book. >* are in an office without a book. >* are looking for a new number. >* are trying to find a number correction. > >Yep, let's just call them slobs and nail them for each use of DA. That's >the ticket. Makes about as much sense as did the idea of tearing the phone >company up. I don't usually disagree with John, but I think he misses the point. Some folks abuse Directory Assistance. Badly. Some businesses used to use it (and still might, where it's free) as a means to verify credit cards on the cheap. Is the person listed at that address? Such companies ran hundreds of DA calls a month without making the corresponding phone calls. Since it costs telco about half a dollar a call (the FCC required cost-justification for the interstate $.60 which the telcos charge and LD carriers pass along), the telcos were being ripped off. I do support monthly DA allowances. But when something is totally "free", it has a way of being abused. fred (k1io)
john@apple.com (John Higdon) (08/30/89)
In article <telecom-v09i0329m03@vector.dallas.tx.us>, stiatl!john@gatech.edu (John DeArmond) writes: > >Those that are too lazy or for whatever reason, should pay for their using > >directory assistance. We don't all need to pay for them. > Hmmm. I always got a kick out of that line. Yep, everybody that > uses DA is a lazy slob including those that: > > * are blind. In most areas, handicapped subscribers can be exempted from DA charges, so this argument is moot. > * are in a phone booth without a book. Pac*Bell does not charge for DA from a public telephone; in fact the PUC does not allow COCOTs to charge for local information, either. Argument is again, moot. > * are in an office without a book. If the proprietor of the office does not feel the need to keep phone books available to employees or visitors then he jolly well should pay for calls to DA. > * are looking for a new number. Look at it as a one-time charge. Be sure to write it down. > * are trying to find a number correction. I don't know what this means. > Yep, let's just call them slobs and nail them for each use of DA. That's > the ticket. Makes about as much sense as did the idea of tearing the phone > company up. A nice little zinger, but irrelavent. Even if the "phone company" had been left intact, I would be a supporter of DA charging. BTW, you are the one referring to people as "slobs"; I simply feel that one who uses a service should pay for it. -- John Higdon | P. O. Box 7648 | +1 408 723 1395 john@zygot.uucp | San Jose, CA 95150 | M o o !
cowan@marob.masa.com (John Cowan) (08/30/89)
In article <telecom-v09i0329m03@vector.dallas.tx.us>, John DeArmond <stiatl! john@gatech.edu> writes: >In article <telecom-v09i0324m09@vector.dallas.tx.us>, > asuvax!gtephx!who!ellisond@ncar.ucar.edu (Dell Ellison) writes: >>Those that are too lazy or for whatever reason, should pay for their using >>directory assistance. We don't all need to pay for them. >Hmmm. I always got a kick out of that line. Yep, everybody that >uses DA is a lazy slob including those that: > >* are blind. >* are in a phone booth without a book. >* are in an office without a book. >* are looking for a new number. >* are trying to find a number correction. > >Yep, let's just call them slobs and nail them for each use of DA. That's >the ticket. Makes about as much sense as did the idea of tearing the phone >company up. Phonus balonus. Here in New York, local (NYNEX) directory assistance calls are $.50 each, same as AT&T. However, blind and other disabled users are exempt, all calls from phone booths are exempt (New York Tel knows better than to bother putting directories in NYC booths!), and there is an allowance of two free calls per month per line. That covers cases #1, #2, #4, and #5 above. Offices without phone books: Every business subscriber gets a telephone book, just like residential subscribers. If the boss can't bother to make the book available, let him pay for the calls. Internet/Smail: cowan@marob.masa.com Dumb: uunet!hombre!marob!cowan Fidonet: JOHN COWAN of 1:107/711 Magpie: JOHN COWAN, (212) 420-0527 Charles li reis, nostre emperesdre magnes Set anz toz pleins at estet in Espagne.
john@gatech.edu (John DeArmond) (08/31/89)
goldstein@delni.enet.dec.com writes: >I don't usually disagree with John, but I think he misses the point. >Some folks abuse Directory Assistance. Badly. Some businesses used to >use it (and still might, where it's free) as a means to verify credit >cards on the cheap. Fred, you and I are in agreement on this point. I simply disagree with the concept that just because there are a few scumbags, we should punish the whole population. That's as bad as the current media campaign to ban a class of weapons because an insignificant number of scumbags abuse the right. The phone company is more than capable of matching DA accesses against calls made from a business. If the number of DA accesses is disappropriate to the call loading, then charge them heavily for the service, heavily enough to discourage further abuse. John -- John De Armond, WD4OQC | Manual? ... What manual ?!? Sales Technologies, Inc. Atlanta, GA | This is Unix, My son, You ...!gatech!stiatl!john **I am the NRA** | just GOTTA Know!!!
deej@bellcore.bellcore.com (David Lewis) (09/05/89)
In article <telecom-v09i0337m05@vector.dallas.tx.us>, stiatl!john@gatech.edu (John DeArmond) writes: > The phone company is more than capable of matching DA accesses > against calls made from a business. If the number of DA accesses is > disappropriate to the call loading, then charge them heavily for the > service, heavily enough to discourage further abuse. Unfortunately, if a phone company says "Well, XYZ Corp is abusing DA, so I'm going to charge XYZ Corp $5 a pop for DA," the next thing that happens is XYZ Corp goes to the PUC, the FCC, court, and anywhere else their lawyers can think of, and blasts the phone company for discriminatory pricing. And most likely wins, too -- phone companies, being common carriers, aren't really allowed to charge customer A a certain rate and customer B another rate for the *exact* same service. (This, of course, gives everyone a segue into discussion of AT&T's Tariff 77, or whatever their "customized tariff" filing which the FCC approved was, and various issues surrounding tariffing and pricing... have a blast, people!) -- David G Lewis ...!bellcore!nvuxr!deej "If this is paradise, I wish I had a lawnmower."
cramer@ames.arc.nasa.gov (Clayton Cramer) (09/06/89)
In article <telecom-v09i0337m05@vector.dallas.tx.us>, stiatl!john@gatech.edu (John DeArmond) writes: > goldstein@delni.enet.dec.com writes: # #I don't usually disagree with John, but I think he misses the point. # #Some folks abuse Directory Assistance. Badly. Some businesses used to # #use it (and still might, where it's free) as a means to verify credit # #cards on the cheap. # Fred, you and I are in agreement on this point. I simply disagree with # the concept that just because there are a few scumbags, we should punish # the whole population. That's as bad as the current media campaign to # ban a class of weapons because an insignificant number of scumbags abuse # the right. The phone company is more than capable of matching DA accesses # against calls made from a business. If the number of DA accesses is # disappropriate to the call loading, then charge them heavily for the # service, heavily enough to discourage further abuse. # John De Armond, WD4OQC | Manual? ... What manual ?!? This reminds of when the charge for directory assistance started in Los Angeles. A group calling itself "Campaign Against Utility Service Exploitation (CAUSE)" suddenly appeared, making the same claim -- that credit bureaus used DA a great deal, and that it was therefore more "fair" to charge for DA as a percent surcharge on the total phone bill -- even though per call DA charges would have hurt such DA abusers MORE than the surcharge on total calls. It was pretty obvious that the people running CAUSE were principally interested in creating a political base for populist/socialist rhetoric -- no one could be so stupid as to think that the total bill surcharge would be fairer than per call charges for DA (except the TV reporters, who are as intelligent as electric toasters). Clayton E. Cramer {pyramid,pixar,tekbspa}!optilink!cramer "No man is an island" is the beginning of the end of personal freedom. Disclaimer? You must be kidding! No company would hold opinions like mine!
phil@goldhill.com (09/06/89)
> Unfortunately, if a phone company says "Well, XYZ Corp is abusing DA, so > I'm going to charge XYZ Corp $5 a pop for DA," the next thing that > happens is XYZ Corp goes to the PUC, the FCC, court, and anywhere else > their lawyers can think of, and blasts the phone company for > discriminatory pricing. And most likely wins, too -- phone companies, > being common carriers, aren't really allowed to charge customer A a > certain rate and customer B another rate for the *exact* same service. 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... 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. Phil Stanhope Gold Hill Computers, Inc. Cambridge, MA. phil@goldhill.com
john@gatech.edu (John DeArmond) (09/07/89)
nvuxr!deej@bellcore.bellcore.com (David Lewis) writes: ^In article <telecom-v09i0337m05@vector.dallas.tx.us>, stiatl!john@gatech.edu ^(John DeArmond) writes: ^^ The phone company is more than capable of matching DA accesses ^^ against calls made from a business. If the number of DA accesses is ^^ disappropriate to the call loading, then charge them heavily for the ^^ service, heavily enough to discourage further abuse. ^Unfortunately, if a phone company says "Well, XYZ Corp is abusing DA, so ^I'm going to charge XYZ Corp $5 a pop for DA," the next thing that ^happens is XYZ Corp goes to the PUC, the FCC, court, and anywhere else ^their lawyers can think of, and blasts the phone company for ^discriminatory pricing. And most likely wins, too -- But you missed my point. Sure they can't do this under the current rules. I'm advocating CHANGING THE RULES just as they did to allow for billed DA in the first place. I repeat, you don't punish the whole population for the misdeeds of a few. At least that used to be the American way. John -- John De Armond, WD4OQC | Manual? ... What manual ?!? Sales Technologies, Inc. Atlanta, GA | This is Unix, My son, You ...!gatech!stiatl!john **I am the NRA** | just GOTTA Know!!!
bzs@cs.bu.edu (Barry Shein) (09/09/89)
Call me a naive (and cynical) fool, but I always thought the reason TPC had free DA was to encourage you to use the phone system (usages which they *did* charge for.) I suppose given that the telephone companies have gone completely broke over this lost leader and have to send their top execs out on the streets to beg lunch money we'd better change everything. Not only that, but we'd achieve ECONOMIC JUSTICE! Something I am sure motivates every red-blooded Fortune 10 company in America. Does anyone in this discussion honestly believe they are talking about anything more important than marketing schemes? Are the folks making feeble noises about "justice" or "morality" in regards to DA charging actually serious? Hello...hello...anybody home? -Barry Shein Software Tool & Die, Purveyors to the Trade 1330 Beacon Street, Brookline, MA 02146, (617) 739-0202 Internet: bzs@skuld.std.com UUCP: encore!xylogics!skuld!bzs or uunet!skuld!bzs
wnp@attctc.dallas.tx.us (Wolf Paul) (09/09/89)
In article <telecom-v09i0353m01@vector.dallas.tx.us> phil@goldhill.com writes: >X-TELECOM-Digest: volume 9, issue 353, message 1 of 9 >> Unfortunately, if a phone company says "Well, XYZ Corp is abusing DA, so >> I'm going to charge XYZ Corp $5 a pop for DA," the next thing that >> happens is XYZ Corp goes to the PUC, the FCC, court, and anywhere else >> their lawyers can think of, and blasts the phone company for >> discriminatory pricing. And most likely wins, too -- phone companies, >> being common carriers, aren't really allowed to charge customer A a >> certain rate and customer B another rate for the *exact* same service. > >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... I guess it depends on the way it is phrased (isn't that usually the case when it comes to legal matters ? :-) ?). The telco wouldn't say, "XYZ Corp is abusing DA, so we'll charge them more", rather it would say, "Everyone gets that many calls to DA per $100 in phone charges; every call to DA beyond that is $.25", or whatever. In that case they are not charging different parties different rates for the same service, but rather, everyone's call volume determines their rates. It is the singling out of **specific** customers for different treatment which is prohibited to common carriers, not the establishment of different service levels or rate classes applicable to all customers -- we already have some of that, i.e. residential and business rates, etc. The criteria for each such level or class may need to be approved by the PUC, but the principle is already well established. Wolf Paul -- Wolf N. Paul * 3387 Sam Rayburn Run * Carrollton TX 75007 * (214) 306-9101 UUCP: {texbell, attctc, dalsqnt}!dcs!wnp DOMAIN: wnp@attctc.dallas.tx.us or wnp%dcs@texbell.swbt.com NOTICE: As of July 3, 1989, "killer" has become "attctc".
clements@bbn.com (Bob Clements) (09/09/89)
In article <telecom-v09i0360m07@vector.dallas.tx.us> bzs@cs.bu.edu (Barry Shein) writes: > ... >Does anyone in this discussion honestly believe they are talking about >anything more important than marketing schemes? > ... > -Barry Shein Well, I haven't been in this discussion yet, but ... based on last year's battle in Massachusetts, I believe there are some real serious abusers of Directory Assistance out there. Massachusetts has a legislature which seems to believe that _anything_ TELCO wants is illegal, immoral, fattening and a ripoff of the public. We still have free DA and ten cent pay phones (the ones belonging to TELCO only, of course, not the COCOTs). TELCO asked the DPU for permission to charge for DA calls. The legislature got into the act and started screaming about TELCO trying to abridge the right of free speech (!?!) and ripping off the public and all the more legitimate objections, too. I watched some of it on the tube. Absolutely amazing. But TELCO kept backing off their position to the point that no reasonable person could have objected and still wanted the permission (and didn't get it). They were willing to allow exemption for anyone who claimed a handicap, even with no supporting evidence. They were willing to exempt pay phones. They were willing to exempt new listings and calls FROM new listings. They promised to provide huge supplies of phone books. They were (reluctantly) willing to exempt not just two calls a month but twenty-five calls per month! And still they said their figures showed there were many (ab)users of the system who went far above that level. (They claimed privacy laws prevented them from naming those (ab)users.) This says to me that there are mass users of DA who are using DA as an extension of their business and not paying for it. I can't see any reason not to have them pay their way. Having said all that, I hereby propose a simple technical solution to the problem: Stop making the DA service so good. Impose a two-minute holding period before giving out the number. (Maybe except from pay phones). That's long enough to encourage people to look it up in the book. It probably would get the bulk abusers to implement their own systems with CD-ROMs. Today's service is so good it is actually faster than looking in the book a lot of the time. But a two minute wait is not too oppressive for the occasional legitimate need to find a number that isn't in the book or the occasion when you don't have a book to look in. Bob Clements, K1BC, clements@bbn.com
john@zygot.ati.com (John Higdon) (09/10/89)
In article <telecom-v09i0360m07@vector.dallas.tx.us>, bzs@cs.bu.edu (Barry Shein) writes: > Call me a naive (and cynical) fool, but I always thought the reason > TPC had free DA was to encourage you to use the phone system (usages > which they *did* charge for.) Not knowing you, I won't call you a fool, but I was certainly unaware that telcos (pre-breakup) used DA as a promotion tool. It was (and is) an essential service to facilitate the use of the telephone. > I suppose given that the telephone companies have gone completely > broke over this lost leader and have to send their top execs out on > the streets to beg lunch money we'd better change everything. Not only This is not clear. Currently, DA is charged for. Do you mean make it free again? DA has costs associated with it just as every service does. With all of the different service entities now in the telephone business, the question is who provides DA and who pays for it. If AT&T maintains a DA bureau and you call it to get aunt Millie's number, then make the call on Sprint, what on earth did AT&T get out of the transaction? If you make a DA call for every pay call you make and I don't, why should I subsidize you? > Does anyone in this discussion honestly believe they are talking about > anything more important than marketing schemes? Are the folks making > feeble noises about "justice" or "morality" in regards to DA charging > actually serious? Hello...hello...anybody home? Recovering costs of operation from users is not necessarily "justice" or "moral", it's just good business. If you have some legitimate question, such as, "Is the amount charged for DA actually commenserate with the costs in providing the service?", then let's talk. Otherwise, you are going to have to accuse every business that charges for its products of being guilty of conducting "marketing schemes". -- John Higdon | P. O. Box 7648 | +1 408 723 1395 john@zygot.ati.com | San Jose, CA 95150 | M o o !
bzs@cs.bu.edu (Barry Shein) (09/11/89)
From: clements@bbn.com (Bob Clements) >Massachusetts has a legislature which seems to believe that _anything_ TELCO >wants is illegal, immoral, fattening and a ripoff of the public. We still >have free DA and ten cent pay phones (the ones belonging to TELCO only, of >course, not the COCOTs). TELCO asked the DPU for permission to charge for DA >calls. The legislature got into the act and started screaming about TELCO >trying to abridge the right of free speech (!?!) and ripping off the public >and all the more legitimate objections, too. I watched some of it on the >tube. Absolutely amazing. ... >This says to me that there are mass users of DA who are using DA as an >extension of their business and not paying for it. I can't see any reason not >to have them pay their way. Although I don't think anything you're saying is "wrong" I do believe there's a lot of moralistic baggage being added to what essentially is business as usual. Nynex (et al) has a monopoly, that's why the legislature gets to meddle in their affairs. If that ever stops being ultimately profitable they're free to relinquish the monopoly. It's not shocking that the legislators take the simple view that adding a new charge for something which was previously free is not in the consumer's interest and advocate for the status quo. Their job is to advocate for what they perceive is their constituent's interest, even if it doesn't seem "fair" (whatever that means in this context.) I suppose the argument is that "we're all paying for it!", the standard battle-cry. I'll be more open to that argument when I hear the BOC say that they'll reduce other prices if they can charge for DA (hah!) After all, if it's a zero sum game then they should be able to show how it will cost all "reasonable" users of DA nothing since rates will be reduced to reflect the shift in revenue stream. Zero-sum arguments generally suffer from the fallacy that that there are only two players in the sum. Generally there are also these creatures known as stock holders and others with claims on any increased revenue stream. Not to mention nice fat raises for the big shots etc. The chances of the savings being passed onto the consumers is usually miniscule although it seems to appeal to the simple mind as an argument, great PR gimmick (profits...they cost everyone :-) Look, these things go on in an atmosphere of pure advocacy. The BOC takes their best shots and the legislature, DPU etc take their best shots and somewhere a compromise everyone can live with is found or else the game ends. As Clarence Darrow once said, "Justice has nothing to do with what goes on in the courtroom, Justice is what comes out of a courtroom." Going back to what I might think is fair, I suspect the whole thing would be settled if they simply charged business for DA (perhaps with a few free DA's per month.) Seems to solve the complaint at hand and they know who the business customers are. Unfortunately they also know damn well that businesses can be clever about getting around these charges, possibly by nurturing private or internal DA orgs etc. That might seem fine by you, but I bet that's not what the BOC is after. I'm guessing there are parameters and goals going on here which aren't being revealed in these discussions. (and responding to john@zygot.ati.com (John Higdon)) >In article <telecom-v09i0360m07@vector.dallas.tx.us>, bzs@cs.bu.edu (Barry Shein) writes: >> Call me a naive (and cynical) fool, but I always thought the reason >> TPC had free DA was to encourage you to use the phone system (usages >> which they *did* charge for.) >Not knowing you, I won't call you a fool, but I was certainly unaware >that telcos (pre-breakup) used DA as a promotion tool. It was (and is) >an essential service to facilitate the use of the telephone. I am finding it impossible to distinguish your statement and mine. Why is "an essential service to facilitate the use of the telephone" not a "promotion tool" (actually, I said "marketing tool", subtle distinction)? I thought they made their money from our use of the telephone? >> I suppose given that the telephone companies have gone completely >> broke over this lost leader and have to send their top execs out on >> the streets to beg lunch money we'd better change everything. Not only >This is not clear. Currently, DA is charged for. Do you mean make it >free again? DA has costs associated with it just as every service does. >With all of the different service entities now in the telephone >business, the question is who provides DA and who pays for it. If AT&T >maintains a DA bureau and you call it to get aunt Millie's number, then >make the call on Sprint, what on earth did AT&T get out of the >transaction? If you make a DA call for every pay call you make and I >don't, why should I subsidize you? Sorry, the discussion I was responding to was around areas like mine where DA is not charged for tho it could be extended to yearning for the days when DA was free everywhere. There are various ways to recover these costs, direct chargeback is but one of them. >Recovering costs of operation from users is not necessarily "justice" >or "moral", it's just good business. If you have some legitimate >question, such as, "Is the amount charged for DA actually commenserate >with the costs in providing the service?", then let's talk. Otherwise, >you are going to have to accuse every business that charges for its >products of being guilty of conducting "marketing schemes". Others were adding a tone of moralism to the discussion, look back at the messages. Why would I "accuse" anyone of "marketing schemes"??? I never said there was anything evil going on. Quite the opposite, if the TELCOs found that free DA increased their business enough to more than pay for the DA (which is why DA was free in the first place) by facilitating the use of telephone services then all power to them, everyone wins. It's entirely possible that AT&T and MCI and Sprint etc get the sum benefit of this so it might not be worth bickering over problems you describe, or they could account the total DA's and come up with some scheme to distribute these costs among themselves from their advertising budgets. All I'm saying is that it's not as obvious as people are presenting that "DA costs money, therefore it must be direct-charged". Does Sears charge for their catalogues? There's a lot of precedent to helping people find your products for free, that's all DA is.
cramer@ames.arc.nasa.gov (Clayton Cramer) (09/11/89)
In article <telecom-v09i0360m07@vector.dallas.tx.us>, bzs@cs.bu.edu (Barry Shein) writes: > Call me a naive (and cynical) fool, but I always thought the reason > TPC had free DA was to encourage you to use the phone system (usages > which they *did* charge for.) So does a phone book -- and it's cheaper than DA. (Though if you had to listen to advertising while waiting for DA...) > I suppose given that the telephone companies have gone completely > broke over this lost leader and have to send their top execs out on > the streets to beg lunch money we'd better change everything. Not only > that, but we'd achieve ECONOMIC JUSTICE! Something I am sure motivates > every red-blooded Fortune 10 company in America. Local phone service rates are a heavily regulated matter, and I'm sure if they proposed offering free long distance service by raising lifeline rates for phone service, Mr. Shein would be screeching about ECONOMIC JUSTICE at his state PUC. > Does anyone in this discussion honestly believe they are talking about > anything more important than marketing schemes? Are the folks making > feeble noises about "justice" or "morality" in regards to DA charging > actually serious? Hello...hello...anybody home? > > -Barry Shein The Left spends most of its energy screeching about "morality" to justify opposing all manners of economic organization. Certainly, the opposition to DA charges in Los Angeles in the early 1980s was entirely cloaked in this false concern for ECONOMIC JUSTICE. Clayton E. Cramer {pyramid,pixar,tekbspa}!optilink!cramer "No man is an island" is the beginning of the end of personal freedom. Disclaimer? You must be kidding! No company would hold opinions like mine!
konstan@postgres.berkeley.edu (Joe Konstan) (09/12/89)
I think there is a simple solution here. Why not allow DA operators to connect
the call. In this fashion, if you request DA on a call, and are connected,
there is (first time per number only) no fee. If you call DA for the same
listing, or call DA and do not choose to place the call, then you are billed
for it.
This solves a number of problems:
1. Businesses which merely use DA to "verify" phone numbers would pay full
cost.
2. LD companies could do the same thing, which would prevent people from
calling AT&T information and using MCI (or whatever) to place the call.
3. Pay phones could be made into general exceptions to the rule.
4. All the legitimate exceptions could still be in place.
A couple of details would need to be worked out:
1. How do you define "place a call?" I would go for connection, six rings,
or busy signal (simpler than a later check against billed calls) which would
probably get rid of "Sure, place it!" followed by an immediate hang up.
Overall though, I think this is the type of SERVICE that a phone company
should be providing, and there is no reason LD companies shouldn't compete on
the quality of their DA services.
Oh, and Barry Shein wrote:
>>Does Sears charge for their catalogues? There's a lot of precedent to
>>helping people find your products for free, that's all DA is.
Well, last I looked, Sears, Penney's, and the rest charged for their
catalogues, but gave you a merchandise certificate of about the same value
good for mail order. (With Penney's, it is a $4 catalog, and a $5 certificate)
This seems almost exactly the same, and I think it should work.
Joe Konstanjohn@zygot.ati.com (John Higdon) (09/12/89)
In article <telecom-v09i0364m02@vector.dallas.tx.us>, bzs@cs.bu.edu (Barry Shein) writes: > Does Sears charge for their catalogues? There's a lot of precedent to > helping people find your products for free, that's all DA is. Yes, indeed they do charge. And it's not a petty amount, either! Sorry, I couln't resist. Apparently you haven't tried to get a Sears catalogue lately. And it points out that at some point even they must have felt that just giving the catalogues away wasn't cost effective; those customers that were really serious would be willing to pop for the catalogue. -- John Higdon | P. O. Box 7648 | +1 408 723 1395 john@zygot.ati.com | San Jose, CA 95150 | M o o !