MAP@AI.AI.MIT.EDU ("Michael A. Patton") (10/25/87)
From your TELECOM message dated 23 Oct 1987:
However, if you want a good example of a service that we shouldn't
be charged extra for, try touch tone on for size. Touch tone
calls are dialed faster, and therefore take up less of the central
office's processing time. Perhaps back in the Stroger or crossbar
days it made sense to charge extra to cover the cost of installing
touch tone dialing equipment, but for ESS offices, people should
really pay extra for *pulse*. This would have the additional
benefit of hastening the demise of antiquated pulse equipment.
Robert Lenoil
In fact tone dialing was developed by Bell because it would save money
and make it beneficial to replace older equipment. They (the
technical types who developed it) proposed that, one CO at a time, the
entire Bell System should convert from pulse-only to tone-only service
(at NO COST to the subscriber!). This would lower costs, decrease
equipment requirements, and other assorted benefits. They even did an
economic analysis with the cost of buying everyone a new phone to
replace their existing one (in those days they were all leased from
Bell anyway), upgrading CO equipment, etc. They determined that the
savings would pay for this. Unfortunately, the marketing people then
got into the act and said to themselves, "Here is something that the
subscriber will see as having a personal benefit, therefore we can get
them to pay extra for it." The regulatory agencies, of course, would
not let them FORCE people to get a more expensive service. Thus we
have the current state of affairs.
Mike Patton