Path: utzoo!attcan!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!iuvax!rutgers!sun-barr!texsun!texbell!vector!telecom-gateway From: nvuxr!deej@bellcore.bellcore.com (David Lewis) Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom Subject: Re: Why DA Costs Should Be Spread Among All Subscribers Message-ID: Date: 5 Sep 89 13:04:37 GMT Organization: Bellcore, Livingston, NJ Lines: 24 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 348, message 2 of 10 In article , stiatl!john@gatech.edu (John DeArmond) writes: > The phone company is more than capable of matching DA accesses > against calls made from a business. If the number of DA accesses is > disappropriate to the call loading, then charge them heavily for the > service, heavily enough to discourage further abuse. Unfortunately, if a phone company says "Well, XYZ Corp is abusing DA, so I'm going to charge XYZ Corp $5 a pop for DA," the next thing that happens is XYZ Corp goes to the PUC, the FCC, court, and anywhere else their lawyers can think of, and blasts the phone company for discriminatory pricing. And most likely wins, too -- phone companies, being common carriers, aren't really allowed to charge customer A a certain rate and customer B another rate for the *exact* same service. (This, of course, gives everyone a segue into discussion of AT&T's Tariff 77, or whatever their "customized tariff" filing which the FCC approved was, and various issues surrounding tariffing and pricing... have a blast, people!) -- David G Lewis ...!bellcore!nvuxr!deej "If this is paradise, I wish I had a lawnmower."