LANGFORD@crc.crc.vcu.edu (04/12/89)
It seems to me that the reason we have the problem with high AOS fees is that
normal market forces aren't at work, not so much because of uninformed
customers, but because the person making the choice of which AOS is used is
not the person who _uses_ it, and the two people have different goals.
As I understand it, a hotel or airport (or other property owner) signs up with
an AOS and receives a cut from the revenue generated by the phones at that
location. Thus, the incentive for both the AOS _and_ the property owner is
toward _increased_ prices and/or kickbacks, whereas the user, who pays the
bill, would have chosen the exact opposite. There's no negative feedback
built in---in fact, it's positive feedback, guaranteed to go out of control.
(I discount such indirect effects as complaining to the manager, which can
in fact act as a control, and complaining to the FCC, which seems to have
had a major effect on the situation.) Maybe all that's needed is to require
hotels or airports (or whoever) to use the same AOS for their own business
lines as for the pay phones---that gives them the right economic incentives.
With regard to the posting of the bill before the House of Rep., did you
notice that it requires AOSs that accept my MCI calling card to bill the call
at the MCI rate? Even if their network is resold AT&T lines, perhaps at
a higher rate than MCI? I'll bet that if this passes intact, these AOS
companies will stop honoring calling cards from the "discount" long-distance
companies (and maybe even AT&T, if the specific call computes as a "net loss").
They could always route you straight to your favorite carrier, after all, and
let _them_ carry it at their own rate.
Reminds me of the Chinese curse: "May you live in interesting times."
Bob Langford
Medical College of Virginia
langford@crc.crc.vcu.edu