rdr@killer.dallas.tx.us (Dean Riddlebarger) (06/14/89)
Patrick and I have just had a small discussion about the overall direction and tone of the messages in the telecom newsgroup. Some of you may have seen some of the newsgroup messages about this [i.e. a reader asked whether or not the newsgroup/digest could deal with technical *and* subjective matter, I noted that most of the talk leans towards the technical, some other corporate flame wars flared up, etc. etc.]. Well, whatever our views on the theme of the messages, we did decide that it might be fun to throw some subjective topics into the fray. So....... I would argue that, since divestiture, the general public has been increasingly alienated by the telecom situation in this country. Many analyses of the telecom market suggest that, while LD competition has brought some degree of cost savings and service flexibility to the average resident, this has been offset and perhaps overridden by cost increases on the local side. It would seem that only large businesses have been able to gain true functional benefits while reducing all average costs for service. The debate questions, then, become: [1] Do readers on the net agree with this assessment? If so, why? If not, why? [2] Is this assessment generally true today, but likely to be nullified as more time passes? Has five years simply been too short a time to see all of the benefits? [3] Could we have done it better and/or differently right from the start? [4] Could we modify the process now in order to once again favor the average resident? Would we want to? I trust that this topic is somewhat relevant, and further that it is structured so flame-oriented opinions on various companies can be avoided. Have fun! I look forward to seeing responses...... Dean "There will be a quiz Friday" Riddlebarger Systems Consultant - AT&T [216] 348-6863 uucp: att!crfax!crnsnwbt!rdr Disclaimer: When pressed, my employer's Business Plan is Gospel.....:-)
wmartin@st-louis-emh2.army.mil (Will Martin) (06/15/89)
>[1] Do readers on the net agree with this assessment? If so, why? >If not, why? I wholeheartedly agree that the ordinary residential customer has been a total loser from this fiasco. Many of the people on this list may respond and say "not so", because they have personally benefitted. Often this is because they make many long-distance calls. I want to point out that this is NOT "ordinary" -- in fact, it is quite the exception. I define the "ordinary" customer as people with POTS, no fancy special services, probably not even touchtone, who have had plain flat-rate local service for many years, and who have seen their bills escalate far more than inflation would justify, because of asinine things like the "access charge" and the forcing of measured service in many areas. The only benefit that has come to these people has been the elimination of the telco restrictions on hooking up your own phone equipment, and this has largely been negated by the idiotic changes in the repair service situation. It could have been achieved by a simple mandate that the local telco couldn't bitch at you for hooking up extra telephones, answering machines, etc., unless you actually caused demonstrable harm to the network. Nothing else needed to change! >[2] Is this assessment generally true today, but likely to be nullified >as more time passes? Has five years simply been too short a time to >see all of the benefits? No. Things always get worse. This is a general principle of life, and is no different in this aspect than any other. Technology may improve, but other things always come along to make the end total result worse. >[3] Could we have done it better and/or differently right from the start? Certainly. We should have left the existing network as-is. Allow competing LD companies to fight with AT&T but under strict regulation. AT&T could have competed on price BY REDUCING EXPENSES, keeping the existing "Bell System" intact. For example, Southestern Bell here in St. Louis spent millions of dollars on new office buildings with fancy furnishings, plush executive offices, and lots of perks. They could have reduced expenses by having offices just like the one I work in myself, with plain grey-metal institutional furniture and minimal fanciness. No money spent on political and charitable contricutions, and no inflated executive salaries. (No reason why anyone should be paid more than the government GS schedule, in any industry anywhere.:-) >[4] Could we modify the process now in order to once again favor the >average resident? Would we want to? Yes. We can roll back things to pre-divestiture days. Sure it won't be easy. It will be simpler if we first kill all the lawyers... The whole damn thing started out with people making too many LD calls and complaining about how much they cost. The point is that it is just flat WRONG to make most LD calls that are made (and, for that matter, most local calls). WRITE LETTERS! LEAVE THE DAMN TELEPHONE ON THE HOOK! Grump! Will Martin
lars@salt.acc.com (Lars J Poulsen) (06/16/89)
There is a general perception that the net effect of the ATT breakup has
been to shift rates from long distance service to local service, and
that only large businesses have gained overall reductions is the cost of
thier phone service.
I believe that the restructuring of rates has been a good thing. The
long distance telephone business today is competitive and in almost
every way superior to the conditions of 5 years ago. At the same time,
the technolgy of the network has been brought up to date; the last few
crossbar exchanges are being replaced by new all-digital exchanges as
we discuss this. On the other hand, the Reagan era deregulation has
created a bad situation in the local service area, not unlike the cable
TV business: A monopoly provider has been allowed to raise rates and
restructure rates with inadequate supervision.
At the outset, pessimists claimed that without the motherly guidance of
AT&T, the nation's telephone network would fall apart as
ultra-short-term profit hunting discouraged capital investment. This has
not happened at all. The breakup has largely achieved the goals that
drove it. The ripple effects of changes has been such that it would
have been impossible to predict the consequences of minor changes to the
plan at the outset.
Brought up in "socialist" Europe, I believe that all regulation of the
business market should favor "the little guy", i.e. residential
customers as well as family businesses. The IBMs of this world can look
after them selves quite well.
I would like to see more regulation of the local telephone service, to
include the following:
(1) More readable phone bills. All mandatory charges, taxes etc included
in the basic monthly price of service, and all optional components
identified on separate line items.
(2) Elimination of the "federally mandated LD access charges". Since
this charge goes straight to the local service provider as part of
the general revenue stream, there is no need to list it separately,
nor to mandate a particular amount. This is sheer obfuscation.
(3) Equitable charges for all customers. Includes elimination of CENTREX
service. If your subscription includes 20 instruments, each with its
own wire pair into a switch at CO premises, this is really 20 lines.
The pricing of Centrex service to pretend that this is a virtual PBX
is sheer obfuscation.
(4) Least call call routing. If you do not specifically request a
specific long distance carrier, the local operating company should
route the call on the carrier with the lowest list price for the
given origin and destination. With stored program control exchanges,
this would be fairly simple to implement, and would spawn a new
level of competition between the long distance companies.
--
Lars Poulsen <lars@salt.acc.com> (800) 222-7308 or (805) 963-9431 ext 358
ACC Customer Service Affiliation stated for identification only
My employer probably would not agree if he knew what I said !!john@decwrl.dec.com (John Higdon) (06/18/89)
In article <telecom-v09i0200m05@vector.dallas.tx.us>, lars@salt.acc.com (Lars J Poulsen) writes: > I would like to see more regulation of the local telephone service, to > include the following: > > (1) More readable phone bills. All mandatory charges, taxes etc included > in the basic monthly price of service, and all optional components > identified on separate line items. I think one reason they are not included is that the telco doesn't want you to think more money goes into their pocket than actually does. As far as listing options, etc., Pac*Bell on each and every bill lists all of the services that the subscriber pays for. For instance, it shows each custom calling feature and the monthly charge as well as optional "calling plans" (discounts that cost money). > (2) Elimination of the "federally mandated LD access charges". Since > this charge goes straight to the local service provider as part of > the general revenue stream, there is no need to list it separately, > nor to mandate a particular amount. This is sheer obfuscation. Again, they don't want you to notice what that local service really costs. The LD access charge appears to be analogous to a "dealer incentive" or "holdback". In all the rate negotiations with the PUC and consumer groups that figure never comes up. Then when all is said and done, the telcos get that "few bucks more" added right on top. If you look at the reasons for the charge, you will get even more angry. It was originally designed to offset the new inability of the telcos to subsidize local exchange cost with long distance revenues. From the profits being rolled up by the telcos (at least Pac*Bell), that charge seems a bit superfluous. > (3) Equitable charges for all customers. Includes elimination of CENTREX > service. If your subscription includes 20 instruments, each with its > own wire pair into a switch at CO premises, this is really 20 lines. > The pricing of Centrex service to pretend that this is a virtual PBX > is sheer obfuscation. Ah, but the little guy pays in full. For the residence and small business, Pac*Bell offers Commstar, a mini-centrex-type service that includes some (but not all) of the features of a standard centrex. It is available for 1(!) to 30 lines. For this service you first get the lines involved at *full* price. Then you are charged $8 a month PER LINE on top of that. ADD to that $2 per month for each optional feature PER feature PER line and things get somewhat pricy. Compare this with *real* centrex where the price per line is less than a stand-alone line and the centrex is included. It also does more than Commstar. So once again the little guy subsidizes the sacred *major* customer. -- John Higdon | P. O. Box 7648 | +1 408 723 1395 john@zygot.uucp | San Jose, CA 95150 | M o o !
lars@salt.acc.com (Lars J Poulsen) (06/19/89)
In article <telecom-v09i0202m01@vector.dallas.tx.us> ms6b+@andrew.cmu.edu (Marvin Sirbu) writes: > The subscriber line charge (SLC) is an element of interstate phone rates. I consider that to be a fiction. It is something that *I* pay to my local telephone company, and which cannot be waived, even if I disable all toll calls from the line. The local telco does not have to substiantiate the expense that is alledgedly covered by this charge, and it is not tied to the actual access provided. I wrote: >> (3) Equitable charges for all customers. Includes elimination of CENTREX >> service. If your subscription includes 20 instruments, each with its >> own wire pair into a switch at CO premises, this is really 20 lines. >> The pricing of Centrex service to pretend that this is a virtual PBX >> is sheer obfuscation. Marvin said: > Equity requires that 20 ordinary phone lines should not cost simply 20 > times the cost of one phone line, since there are economies of scale. I do not object to volume discounts. But Centrex is NOT a volume discount. Centrex is a tariff that allows a subscriber with 400 instruments to describe this as a virtual PBX with 12 outside lines. You then pay only for 12 lines plus rental on the non-existent PBX. I maintain that this is sheer obfuscation. >> (4) Least call call routing. >Centrex users can in fact buy such a service from the local telephone >company, but it is costly. The reasons it costs so much is an element >of the divestiture which could be changed without changing the >Constitution. Bascially, the MFJ forbids a BOC from having anything to >do with "selecting" which long distance company carries your traffic. This makes some sense. I still think it would be a great convenience. And while it was true at the time of divestiture that the BOCs were in bed with ATT, this has changed. I think a regulated choice could work today. Somebody else said that the different carriers have such different tariff structures that it would depend on the call length which was cheapest (and thus could not be determined at call setup time). Since this is wish list time, I'd propose that regulators stipulate the structure of the tariff: Call setup charge + per minute charge, and that the slection be based on the cost of a 3-minute call. (If your calls are of a different pattern, or if you can negotiate a better discount, you can still select your own carrier). I maintain that this would spark an intense competition between carriers. Lars Poulsen <lars@salt.acc.com> (800) 222-7308 or (805) 963-9431 ext 358 ACC Customer Service Affiliation stated for identification only My employer probably would not agree if he knew what I said !!
edell%garnet.Berkeley.EDU@ucbvax.berkeley.edu (Richard Edell) (06/23/89)
In article <telecom-v09i0206m06@vector.dallas.tx.us> apple!zygot!john@decwrl. dec.com (John Higdon) writes: >In article <telecom-v09i0200m05@vector.dallas.tx.us>, lars@salt.acc.com >(Lars J Poulsen) writes: >> I would like to see more regulation of the local telephone service, to >> include the following: >> (1) More readable phone bills. All mandatory charges, taxes etc included >> in the basic monthly price of service, and all optional components >> identified on separate line items. >I think one reason they are not included is that the telco doesn't want >you to think more money goes into their pocket than actually does. As >far as listing options, etc., Pac*Bell on each and every bill lists all >of the services that the subscriber pays for. For instance, it shows >each custom calling feature and the monthly charge as well as optional >"calling plans" (discounts that cost money). Pacific Bell only itemizes the monthly service charges for *residential* accounts. For instance: Measured Rate Service 4.25 Touch-Tone Service 1.70 (not actual ammounts) Business customers only get "Monthly Service (start date) thru (end date)" and some amount. Beginning this year Pacific Bell has been sending to every business account holder a "Customer Service Record". These reports are sent according to one of three schedules: 1) annually, which month depends on the last digit of the account number; 2) every month (!); and 3) no record. Each account defaults to schedule #1, then Pacific mails a postcard asking which schedule the business would like to be on in the future. In addition, a report is sent each time there is a change in the account records (service added/removed). These reports are not as simple as the a couple additional lines as is the case with residential service (business accouts are more complicated!) Before they began sending these reports is was a real hassle to find-out what you're paying for each month - you could ask for a "customer service report" (same name) but this would be screen images of what the account reps see (USOC codes only, no descriptions). A few years back I asked for, and got, an explanation for what "Monthly Service" included. Then by doing a simple audit of what services we were using I discovered that Pacific Bell and AT&T were charging for a key telephone system that was removed four years earlier when Pacific Telephone (the old pre-1984 CA) telco) sold my employer a new PBX. We got a refunds totalling $15,000! -Richard Edell (edell@garnet.berkeley.edu)
deej@bellcore.bellcore.com (David Lewis) (06/23/89)
In article <telecom-v09i0203m05@vector.dallas.tx.us>, lars@salt.acc.com (Lars J Poulsen) writes: > In article <telecom-v09i0202m01@vector.dallas.tx.us> > ms6b+@andrew.cmu.edu (Marvin Sirbu) writes: > > The subscriber line charge (SLC) is an element of interstate phone rates. > I consider that to be a fiction. It is something that *I* pay to my > local telephone company, and which cannot be waived, even if I disable > all toll calls from the line. The local telco does not have to > substiantiate the expense that is alledgedly covered by this charge, and > it is not tied to the actual access provided. The Subscriber Line Charge represents the cost to the LEC for providing your line with access to interexchange carriers. If you disable interexchange calls from a given line using CPE, you also have the ability to re-enable IX calls from that line without notifying the LEC. As far as the telco is concerned, you have the ability to gain access to IXCs at any point in time; therefore, you should be charged for this access. It is not technically infeasible to (either) block interexchange calls in the LEC network (or) to have the CPE notify the LEC when a given line has IXC access blocked or unblocked. However, either option requires some technical changes from the way the network functions today. Blocking in the network requires a database lookup either at the switch or a centralized database; CPE notification of the LEC is a customer network management-type function which could *probably* be handled by a new Q.932 (ISDN Supplementary Services) message. Neither case, though, is doable today. > I wrote: > >> (3) Equitable charges for all customers. Includes elimination of CENTREX > >> service. If your subscription includes 20 instruments, each with its > >> own wire pair into a switch at CO premises, this is really 20 lines. > >> The pricing of Centrex service to pretend that this is a virtual PBX > >> is sheer obfuscation. > Marvin said: > > Equity requires that 20 ordinary phone lines should not cost simply 20 > > times the cost of one phone line, since there are economies of scale. > I do not object to volume discounts. But Centrex is NOT a volume > discount. Centrex is a tariff that allows a subscriber with 400 > instruments to describe this as a virtual PBX with 12 outside lines. You > then pay only for 12 lines plus rental on the non-existent PBX. I > maintain that this is sheer obfuscation. You've lost me here. I don't work with Centrex, so my knowledge is limited, but my understanding is that, if you have 400 telephone sets (or modems or whatever), you have the equivalent of 400 loops running back to the CO (whether they be individual loops, or a few multiplexed T1s, or whatever). You're paying the telco for what it costs to run the lines to your locations, install whatever muxes are necessary, and manage the system for you. With a PBX, you pay for however many trunks to the local CO you want, plus the cost of the PBX. If you want 12 trunks, you can have at most 12 conversations outside the PBX at any time. With Centrex, if you have 400 phones, you have the capacity to have all 400 simultaneously conversing outside the Centrex group. Yes, Centrex is a tariff -- but a "virtual PBX"? Not really. It has its own advantages and disadvantages. > >> (4) Least call call routing. > >Centrex users can in fact buy such a service from the local telephone > >company, but it is costly. The reasons it costs so much is an element > >of the divestiture which could be changed without changing the > >Constitution. Bascially, the MFJ forbids a BOC from having anything to > >do with "selecting" which long distance company carries your traffic. > > This makes some sense. I still think it would be a great convenience. I'm not so sure. The IXC market, even though 90% of the traffic is carried by the big three, is still pretty wide open (I think there are still on the order of 100+ IXCs). There's a wide range of cost, quality, coverage, and so forth. I, as a user, know my needs for interexchange telephone service. Cost may be the driver; service may be the driver; billing quality may be the driver; etc. This fits with the parallel discussion that's been going on -- how would you like it if your midnight data dump from your satellite office back to the main office got routed via Joe's Long Distance Company, which has such lousy sound quality that your holding time doubles because of all the retransmits you need, because the algorithm decided on by the FCC mandates that that's the "best" carrier for you to be carried by? A lot more decides the choice of IXC beyond cost, and the person in the best position to decide is the user. Disclaimer: Bellcore doesn't even know I'm saying this. -- David G Lewis ...!bellcore!nvuxr!deej "If this is paradise, I wish I had a lawnmower."
telecom-gateway@vector.UUCP (07/22/89)
Hello, After the invitation to submit subjective comments, I have a few personal opinions for you. In many respects, deragulation, as practiced in the United States, is a little like throwing out the baby with the bath water. What do I mean? Well, by way of example, I went to SIGGraph last year in Atlanta. This little ET sure had a difficult time calling home! When I tried to dial the call myself, I could not get through (I can no longer remember the exact problem :-( ). So, naively I tried to ask the operator to place the call, after explaining the problem. Seemingly, every time I dialed 0 I got an operator from a different system. Certainly, the responses weren't consistent with a single training program. So, I had to field questions of "what LD service do you want to use?". Dammit, I just want to call home! I eventually succeeded, but I vowed to fight any similar efforts to deregulate Canada's telecommunications industry. Digression: airline deregulation is similarly bad. The benefits are lost in the enormously higher risks as airlines ignore safety (take Eastern Airlines, for example, (please?)). If Canada goes for deregulation, I hope we can achieve a balance between the important factors of usability, convenience, and safety versus the other benefits of deregulation (increased competition, purportedly bring costs to the consumer down). Well, enough said. I hope this fuels the fires, without starting any flame wars. Richard Sargent Internet: richard@pantor.UUCP Systems Analyst UUCP: uunet!pantor!richard
TIHOR@acf1.nyu.edu (07/23/89)
Some form of major change was inevitable. I remember that at the time that AT&T decided to go with the flow there was a serious question about how much long distance ratres would rise and to what extent universal service would continue to exist since the major customers of LS serve were bypassing at an alarming rate. Thus either we had to move towards the current situation or towards the European model of strinctly forbidding any transmission of information which bypasses the official carrier. In the US this would probably have ended up as a Data Tax on communications capacity. I agree that the local companies should have been treated more firmly and required to improve the system working towards the best available technology. As it is now local service at best prices normal business service to cover costs, residential at the highest price politically permitted and lifeline "subsidized services" at the marginal cost.
ms6b+@andrew.cmu.edu (Marvin Sirbu) (07/23/89)
Lars Pulson writes: > (2) Elimination of the "federally mandated LD access charges". Since > this charge goes straight to the local service provider as part of > the general revenue stream, there is no need to list it separately, > nor to mandate a particular amount. This is sheer obfuscation. Don't expect this to change unless we rewrite the Constitution to eliminate States. As long as we have a Federal system, interstate rates will be under Federal control, and local rates under State control. The subscriber line charge (SLC) is an element of interstate phone rates. > (3) Equitable charges for all customers. Includes elimination of CENTREX > service. If your subscription includes 20 instruments, each with its > own wire pair into a switch at CO premises, this is really 20 lines. > The pricing of Centrex service to pretend that this is a virtual PBX > is sheer obfuscation. Equity requires that 20 ordinary phone lines should not cost simply 20 times the cost of one phone line, since there are economies of scale. After all, I could use a digital loop carrier to run 20 lines to one location. I also only have to send one bill. These savings should translate into lower rates for 20 lines to one location--Centrex--than 20 individual lines to different locations. > (4) Least call call routing. If you do not specifically request a > specific long distance carrier, the local operating company should > route the call on the carrier with the lowest list price for the > given origin and destination. With stored program control exchanges, > this would be fairly simple to implement, and would spawn a new > level of competition between the long distance companies. Centrex users can in fact buy such a service from the local telephone company, but it is costly. The reasons it costs so much is an element of the divestiture which could be changed without changing the Constitution. Bascially, the MFJ forbids a BOC from having anything to do with "selecting" which long distance company carries your traffic. This strict language was put in in reaction to the pre-divestiture behavior of the BOCs which favored AT&T. The way Centrex customers get around the rule is that the BOC establishes a capability for routing calls, but the Centrex customer is responsible for downloading to the CO the routing tables to be used (i.e. which area-code/exchange numbers should be routed via which carrier). Thus, it is argued, it is the customer, not the BOC who is "selecting" the carrier. Unless you can afford to update and manage these routing tables, you can't afford the least cost routing service, and the BOCs are currently prohibited from doing it for you. Marvin Sirbu Carnegie Mellon University internet: ms6b+@andrew.cmu.edu bitnet: ms6b+%andrew@CMCCVB
scott@dtscp1.UUCP (Scott Barman) (08/03/89)
X-TELECOM-Digest: volume 9, issue 202, message 2 of 9 > [ ... problems with long distance dialing in Atlanta ... ] > >Seemingly, every time I dialed 0 I got an operator from a different system. >Certainly, the responses weren't consistent with a single training program. >So, I had to field questions of "what LD service do you want to use?". Dammit, >I just want to call home! I eventually succeeded, but I vowed to fight any >similar efforts to deregulate Canada's telecommunications industry. I think about a year ago, Southern Bell (and I wish someone would confirm this) "standardized" their access to long distance operators. When I would visit my parents in Charlotte, NC, I had to dial two ones (11) to get the operator of the long distance company (at least that's what the SoBell operator told me). When I visited a relative in Ft. Lauderdale, I had to ask the SoBell operator to get the LD operator. Here in Atlanta, I had no problems so I don't know. Now, I can reach the LD operator using two zeros (00) from all places. I do not know if this is standard, but about eight months ago I tried to place a call with my AT&T card from the airport here and had problems, I used the 00 to find they were not AT&T (this was before the publicity about the LD problems problems at Hartsfield). Now I do not know if 00 will work for all areas--even within the Southern Bell area--but it would be nice if it did and became a "standard." -- scott barman {gatech, emory}!dtscp1!scott
peter@uunet.uu.net (08/03/89)
> Equity requires that 20 ordinary phone lines should not cost simply 20 > times the cost of one phone line, since there are economies of scale. So why do I have to pay 2 times the cost of one line for 2 residential phone lines? What's sauce for the goose... --- Peter da Silva, Xenix Support, Ferranti International Controls Corporation. Business: peter@ficc.uu.net, +1 713 274 5180. | "The sentence I am now Personal: peter@sugar.hackercorp.com. `-_-' | writing is the sentence Quote: Have you hugged your wolf today? 'U` | you are now reading"
dave@rutgers.edu (Dave Levenson) (08/06/89)
> > Equity requires that 20 ordinary phone lines should not cost simply 20 > > times the cost of one phone line, since there are economies of scale. > So why do I have to pay 2 times the cost of one line for 2 residential > phone lines? What's sauce for the goose... That depends upon where you live. In New Jersey, a second line costs less than the first line. This is true for both business and residence service. -- Dave Levenson Voice: (201) 647 0900 Westmark, Inc. Internet: dave@westmark.uu.net Warren, NJ, USA UUCP: {uunet | rutgers | att}!westmark!dave [The Man in the Mooney] AT&T Mail: !westmark!dave
goudreau@dg-rtp.dg.com (Bob Goudreau) (08/16/89)
>I just want to call home! I eventually succeeded, but I vowed to fight >any similar efforts to deregulate Canada's telecommunications industry. >Digression: airline deregulation is similarly bad. The benefits are >lost in the enormously higher risks as airlines ignore safety (take >Eastern Airlines, for example, (please?)). >Richard Sargent Internet: richard@pantor.UUCP >Systems Analyst UUCP: uunet!pantor!richard You picked a poor analogy by criticizing airline deregulation's effect on safety. In fact, according to a recent article in the _Economist_, the decline in accidents & deaths per US aviation passenger mile has continued unabated, even throughout the past decade of deregulation. The truth is not that airline deregulation has led to "enormously higher risks"; rather, deregulation has had little effect on the historically increasing airline safety level. Bob Goudreau +1 919 248 6231 Data General Corporation ...!mcnc!rti!xyzzy!goudreau 62 Alexander Drive goudreau@dg-rtp.dg.com Research Triangle Park, NC 27709, USA
miket@brspyr1.brs.com (Mike Trout) (08/19/89)
In article <telecom-v09i0302m07@vector.dallas.tx.us>, goudreau@dg-rtp.dg.com (Bob Goudreau) writes: > >Digression: airline deregulation is similarly bad. The benefits are > >lost in the enormously higher risks as airlines ignore safety (take > >Eastern Airlines, for example, (please?)). > You picked a poor analogy by criticizing airline deregulation's effect > on safety. In fact, according to a recent article in the _Economist_, > the decline in accidents & deaths per US aviation passenger mile has > continued unabated, even throughout the past decade of deregulation. > The truth is not that airline deregulation has led to "enormously > higher risks"; rather, deregulation has had little effect on the > historically increasing airline safety level. Examining one set of statistics reported by one news organization proves little. Airline safety statistics can be used to prove that safety has never been better, that it has never been worse, and everything in between. Serious, scholarly questions, with substantiation in fact, HAVE been raised regarding the effect of deregulation upon airline safety. Note the recent FAA special safety exam of Eastern, in which it was stated that although there were no specific safety problems worth citation now, it was inevitable that such problems would develop in the future. Let's keep this forum for the discussion of telecommunications, and leave airline safety to the experts in that field. -- NSA food: Iran sells Nicaraguan drugs to White House through CIA, SOD & NRO. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~Michael Trout (miket@brspyr1)~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ BRS Information Technologies, 1200 Rt. 7, Latham, N.Y. 12110 (518) 783-1161 "God forbid we should ever be 20 years without...a rebellion." Thomas Jefferson
john@gatech.edu (John DeArmond) (08/21/89)
In article <telecom-v09i0302m07@vector.dallas.tx.us> goudreau@rtp48.dg.com (Bob Goudreau) writes: >>Digression: airline deregulation is similarly bad. The benefits are >>lost in the enormously higher risks as airlines ignore safety (take >>Eastern Airlines, for example, (please?)). > >You picked a poor analogy by criticizing airline deregulation's effect >on safety. In fact, according to a recent article in the _Economist_, >the decline in accidents & deaths per US aviation passenger mile has >continued unabated, even throughout the past decade of deregulation. And as anyone who has looked below the surface of this subject knows, "deaths per passenger mile" is a completely bogus measurment which does not represent the true safety condition of modern air travel. As a larger and larger proportion of a carrier's fleet becomes high capacity jumbo-jets, the DPPM magically goes down even while the crash rate is up. A much truer representation is "deaths per VEHICLE mile". Even more representative than that would be "crash rate" in units of "crashes per vehicle mile". Rearrange the figures to fit into either of these models and the figures don't look so hot. Makes pedaling a bicycle on I-75 at rush hour look safe. As some immortal soul once said, "figures lie and liars figure". And you certainly don't expect the airline industry or FAA to arrange the lying so THEY look bad do you? Now back to your regularly scheduled telephone show :-) 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!!!
tom@pdx.mentor.com (Tom Ace) (08/23/89)
John DeArmond <stiatl!john@gatech.edu>, discussing air travel, said: >And as anyone who has looked below the surface of this subject knows, >"deaths per passenger mile" is a completely bogus measurment which >does not represent the true safety condition of modern air travel. As >a larger and larger proportion of a carrier's fleet becomes high capacity >jumbo-jets, the DPPM magically goes down even while the crash rate is up. Let me see if I get your reasoning right. They pack the same number of people on fewer planes, so fewer crashes happen (fewer planes to crash), and voila--the DPPM goes down. Isn't it essentially a wash, though, because if there are now more people per plane on the average, each crash is likely to result in more fatalities? DPPM may not measure what _you_ want to know, but it is hardly a "completely bogus measurement". If I want to know the odds of my dying when I fly 1900 miles, I can calculate that from a DPPM figure. I cannot calculate that from the "deaths per vehicle mile" figure which you say is more useful. Each metric has its particular applications. (This IS the Telecom digest, isn't it?) Tom Ace tom@sje.mentor.com ...!mntgfx!sje!tom [Moderator's Note: Yes, its TELECOM, and we have probably exhausted this topic for now, at least in this forum. PT]
olsen@xn.ll.mit.edu (Jim Olsen) (08/23/89)
John DeArmond <stiatl!john@gatech.edu> writes: >..."deaths per passenger mile" is a completely bogus measurment which >does not represent the true safety condition of modern air travel. Mr. DeArmond is sadly mistaken. If one must use a single statistic to measure safety, deaths/passenger-mile is as good as any, and superior to deaths/vehicle-mile precisely because it does account for passenger load. Judged by the chance of death on a journey, airline safety *is* improving. However, other aspects of airline deregulation suggest interesting parallels to telecom deregulation. Although the overall safety of air travel is improving, many airlines are relaxing some safety standards: those standards which exceed the legal minimum requirements. There is actually nothing wrong with this, as long as the legal requirements are adequate and are properly enforced. If one believes that the relaxed standards are too lenient, the answer is not airline re-regulation, but simply to require higher minimum safety standards. As with the airline industry, the deregulated telecom industry is pushing the legal limits. Unfortunately, in many cases (such as AOS and COCOT's) these limits were almost nonexistent, leading to abuses. As with the airlines, the best solution is not to return to the "good old days" of non-competition, but to make and enforce strong regulations to curb the abuses. Since the laissez-faire FCC is reluctant to do this, it's up to Congress and the individual states to do the job.
srg@quick.com (Spencer Garrett) (08/23/89)
In article <telecom-v09i0315m03@vector.dallas.tx.us>, stiatl!john@gatech.edu (John DeArmond) writes: > And as anyone who has looked below the surface of this subject knows, > "deaths per passenger mile" is a completely bogus measurment which > does not represent the true safety condition of modern air travel. As > a larger and larger proportion of a carrier's fleet becomes high capacity > jumbo-jets, the DPPM magically goes down even while the crash rate is up. > > A much truer representation is "deaths per VEHICLE mile". Even more > representative than that would be "crash rate" in units of "crashes per > vehicle mile". Rearrange the figures to fit into either of these models > and the figures don't look so hot. Makes pedaling a bicycle on I-75 at > rush hour look safe. Just a minute, guy. Deaths per passenger mile is exactly the figure you need to calculate your own chance of dying. How many others meet their end at the same time isn't very relevant. Deaths per vehicle mile just makes bigger planes look less safe, ignoring the fact that fewer trips need to be made to accomplish the same end. DPPM does NOT go down "magically" as planes get bigger, we just don't have to send the coroners to as many places to pick up the same number of bodies. Crashes per vehicle mile is a useful figure for gauging the effectiveness of traffic control procedures, since the size of the plane doesn't affect the way it's handled, but for overall air safety concerns I want to know how many *people* bought the farm, not just how many *pilots*. (And I'm not down on pilots, mind you; everyone in my family *is* one!) (And what is this doing in comp.dcom.telecom? I've redirected followups.)