Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!netsys!vector!telecom-gateway From: lars@salt.acc.com (Lars J Poulsen) Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom Subject: Re: Divestiture, Business and the General Public Message-ID: Date: 19 Jun 89 05:05:18 GMT Sender: news@vector.Dallas.TX.US Organization: Advanced Computer Communications, Santa Barbara, California Lines: 49 Approved: telecom-request@vector.dallas.tx.us X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@vector.dallas.tx.us X-TELECOM-Digest: volume 9, issue 203, message 5 of 5 In article 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 (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 !!