pkh%computer-science.nottingham.ac.uk@nsfnet-relay.ac.uk (Kevin Hopkins) (09/05/89)
(Originally sent on Thu, 24 Aug 89 10:36:37 +0100, but - you guessed it - the UK once again held it up - pkh.) Here's a UK view of charging for DA calls. Over here in the UK British Telecom (BT) has unsuccessfully tried to introduce charges for directory enquiry calls a few times over the last 5 or so years. The main reason that the attempts have failed is that BT only provide a phone directory book for your local area. If I have the name and address of a company in London but no phone number I will phone 192 and expect to be given the number without charge. This is the attitude of most of the people in the UK, that is why BT have been defeat on the charges for 192. Now if people were to be given a terminal linked into the whole of the UK directory enquiries database (as the French have for their database) or we were given all the UK phone books by default ( :-) then people would not mind paying for 192. The fact is that as we do not have the information provided for us by default so we expect to be given it without charge. Most people over here usually complain that BT is being immoral (yep, that's the word they use) when they try charging for 192 as there is no other source for the information 192 provides. Now, I think there is a case for charging for local directory enquires as it usually means that I am too lazy to get off my ar*e and find the phone book, though there should be a method for the operator to cancel the charge if the number I am looking for has changed/been added since the last printing of the phone directory book. 192 calls from coin boxes should still be free as the yobs have normally torn up the phone directory books to use as bog roll. We can but dream. +--------------------------------------------+--------------------------------+ | K.Hopkins%cs.nott.ac.uk@nsfnet-relay.ac.uk | Kevin Hopkins, | | or ..!mcvax!ukc!nott-cs!K.Hopkins | Department of Computer Science,| | or in the UK: K.Hopkins@uk.ac.nott.cs | University of Nottingham, | | CHAT-LINE: +44 602 484848 x 3815 | Nottingham, ENGLAND, NG7 2RD | +--------------------------------------------+--------------------------------+
wnp@attctc.dallas.tx.us (Wolf Paul) (09/09/89)
In article <telecom-v09i0355m03@vector.dallas.tx.us> K.Hopkins%computer- science.nottingham.ac.uk@nsfnet-relay.ac.uk writes: >Here's a UK view of charging for DA calls. >....... >provided for us by default so we expect to be given it without charge. Most >people over here usually complain that BT is being immoral (yep, that's the >word they use) when they try charging for 192 as there is no other source >for the information 192 provides. While I can understand that argument, nonetheless it is flawed: not only **finding** a phone number, but **calling** a phone number is available only through a service the telco provides -- since making a phone call is otherwise impossible, should the telco be prohibited from charging for that service? Since driving a car is impossible unless you get one from a dealer or the manufacturer, should the dealer or manufacturer be required to provide it free of charge? >printing of the phone directory book. 192 calls from coin boxes should >still be free as the yobs have normally torn up the phone directory books >to use as bog roll. We can but dream. Again, I understand the sentiment, but why should the damage done by the "yobs" be paid for by the telco rather than you who wants to use the coin box? If the average Joe Citizen would not look the other way when the yobs ransack coin boxes (and other public facilities) we would not have such rampant vandalism (and I am by no means innocent of looking the other way, but I don't assume that the telco should have to pay because I look the other way). 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".
ggm@uunet.uu.net (George Michaelson) (09/11/89)
wnp@attctc.dallas.tx.us (Wolf Paul) writes: >In article <telecom-v09i0355m03@vector.dallas.tx.us> K.Hopkins%computer- >science.nottingham.ac.uk@nsfnet-relay.ac.uk writes: > >Here's a UK view of charging for DA calls. > >....... > >provided for us by default so we expect to be given it without charge. Most > >people over here usually complain that BT is being immoral (yep, that's the > >word they use) when they try charging for 192 as there is no other source > >for the information 192 provides. >While I can understand that argument, nonetheless it is flawed: not only >**finding** a phone number, but **calling** a phone number is available >only through a service the telco provides -- since making a phone call is >otherwise impossible, should the telco be prohibited from charging for that >service? Since driving a car is impossible unless you get one from a dealer >or the manufacturer, should the dealer or manufacturer be required to provide >it free of charge? Had BT not been a state owned and run monopoly within living memory, your expectations would be more correct. For many of us, BT (and the GPO in general when they were one) represented a commonly owned *NOT FOR PROFIT* service (albiet one that could and sometimes did make money, which of course was creamed off into the exchequer rather than re-invested or even (shock horror) rebated...) and our views were formed as a result. Even in a post-thatcherist world BT has cross-subsidization and other requirements placed upon it which make it more than just a money-making enterprise. In a world where the phone can be a lifeline, but one denied to many because of more general economic deprivation, the phone-provider can (and in my view should) have certain moral obligations to meet. Before BT left the public fold it was made quite clear that certain services, such as DA and maintenence of phoneboxes were viewed as essential. BT has consistently tried to renege on these and other social commitments, to the extent that OFTEL has been forced to act, and its image as the most complained-about utility only recently was assuaged by very marked improvements in staffing directed towards payphone repairs. I understand one of the first "steamlining" activities to take place was the CENTRALIZING of all DA enquiries. Of course they under-estimated the number of lines required, and call-queing was the norm rather than the exception. Yes, public ownership was not always rosy. The state's blatent creaming off of all profits and separation from the GPO did not (in my opinion) help. Nonetheless, Once upon a time BT was *not* just a company selling a resource, and if some of our expectations reflect that, so much the better I say! -George -- Internet: G.Michaelson@cc.uq.oz.au Phone: +61 7 377 4079 Postal: George Michaelson, Prentice Computer Centre Queensland University, St Lucia, QLD Australia 4067.