Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!ames!sun-barr!texsun!texbell!vector!telecom-gateway From: phil@goldhill.com Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom Subject: Re: Why DA Costs Should Be Spread Among All Subscribers Message-ID: Date: 6 Sep 89 13:42:21 GMT Sender: news@vector.Dallas.TX.US Lines: 21 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 353, message 1 of 9 > 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. Is there a distinction between "common carriers" and "utilities" like the electric and gas companies? I was under the belief that electric companies charge differing rates depending upon consumption, when the consumption occured, etc... If this is the case that there are tiered cost scales for other utilities then I see no reason why a business couldn't be charged less/more for a particular telecommunications service. Phil Stanhope Gold Hill Computers, Inc. Cambridge, MA. phil@goldhill.com