Path: utzoo!attcan!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!netsys!vector!telecom-gateway From: apple!zygot!john@decwrl.dec.com (John Higdon) Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom Subject: Re: Divestiture, Business and the General Public Message-ID: Date: 18 Jun 89 06:06:43 GMT Sender: news@vector.Dallas.TX.US Organization: ATI Wares Team Lines: 56 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 206, message 6 of 6 In article , 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 !