Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!wuarchive!texbell!vector!telecom-gateway From: bzs@cs.bu.edu (Barry Shein) Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom Subject: Re: Why DA Costs Should Be Spread Among All Subscribers Message-ID: Date: 10 Sep 89 17:58:23 GMT Sender: news@vector.Dallas.TX.US Lines: 132 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 364, message 2 of 5 From: clements@bbn.com (Bob Clements) >Massachusetts has a legislature which seems to believe that _anything_ TELCO >wants is illegal, immoral, fattening and a ripoff of the public. We still >have free DA and ten cent pay phones (the ones belonging to TELCO only, of >course, not the COCOTs). TELCO asked the DPU for permission to charge for DA >calls. The legislature got into the act and started screaming about TELCO >trying to abridge the right of free speech (!?!) and ripping off the public >and all the more legitimate objections, too. I watched some of it on the >tube. Absolutely amazing. ... >This says to me that there are mass users of DA who are using DA as an >extension of their business and not paying for it. I can't see any reason not >to have them pay their way. Although I don't think anything you're saying is "wrong" I do believe there's a lot of moralistic baggage being added to what essentially is business as usual. Nynex (et al) has a monopoly, that's why the legislature gets to meddle in their affairs. If that ever stops being ultimately profitable they're free to relinquish the monopoly. It's not shocking that the legislators take the simple view that adding a new charge for something which was previously free is not in the consumer's interest and advocate for the status quo. Their job is to advocate for what they perceive is their constituent's interest, even if it doesn't seem "fair" (whatever that means in this context.) I suppose the argument is that "we're all paying for it!", the standard battle-cry. I'll be more open to that argument when I hear the BOC say that they'll reduce other prices if they can charge for DA (hah!) After all, if it's a zero sum game then they should be able to show how it will cost all "reasonable" users of DA nothing since rates will be reduced to reflect the shift in revenue stream. Zero-sum arguments generally suffer from the fallacy that that there are only two players in the sum. Generally there are also these creatures known as stock holders and others with claims on any increased revenue stream. Not to mention nice fat raises for the big shots etc. The chances of the savings being passed onto the consumers is usually miniscule although it seems to appeal to the simple mind as an argument, great PR gimmick (profits...they cost everyone :-) Look, these things go on in an atmosphere of pure advocacy. The BOC takes their best shots and the legislature, DPU etc take their best shots and somewhere a compromise everyone can live with is found or else the game ends. As Clarence Darrow once said, "Justice has nothing to do with what goes on in the courtroom, Justice is what comes out of a courtroom." Going back to what I might think is fair, I suspect the whole thing would be settled if they simply charged business for DA (perhaps with a few free DA's per month.) Seems to solve the complaint at hand and they know who the business customers are. Unfortunately they also know damn well that businesses can be clever about getting around these charges, possibly by nurturing private or internal DA orgs etc. That might seem fine by you, but I bet that's not what the BOC is after. I'm guessing there are parameters and goals going on here which aren't being revealed in these discussions. (and responding to john@zygot.ati.com (John Higdon)) >In article , bzs@cs.bu.edu (Barry Shein) writes: >> Call me a naive (and cynical) fool, but I always thought the reason >> TPC had free DA was to encourage you to use the phone system (usages >> which they *did* charge for.) >Not knowing you, I won't call you a fool, but I was certainly unaware >that telcos (pre-breakup) used DA as a promotion tool. It was (and is) >an essential service to facilitate the use of the telephone. I am finding it impossible to distinguish your statement and mine. Why is "an essential service to facilitate the use of the telephone" not a "promotion tool" (actually, I said "marketing tool", subtle distinction)? I thought they made their money from our use of the telephone? >> I suppose given that the telephone companies have gone completely >> broke over this lost leader and have to send their top execs out on >> the streets to beg lunch money we'd better change everything. Not only >This is not clear. Currently, DA is charged for. Do you mean make it >free again? DA has costs associated with it just as every service does. >With all of the different service entities now in the telephone >business, the question is who provides DA and who pays for it. If AT&T >maintains a DA bureau and you call it to get aunt Millie's number, then >make the call on Sprint, what on earth did AT&T get out of the >transaction? If you make a DA call for every pay call you make and I >don't, why should I subsidize you? Sorry, the discussion I was responding to was around areas like mine where DA is not charged for tho it could be extended to yearning for the days when DA was free everywhere. There are various ways to recover these costs, direct chargeback is but one of them. >Recovering costs of operation from users is not necessarily "justice" >or "moral", it's just good business. If you have some legitimate >question, such as, "Is the amount charged for DA actually commenserate >with the costs in providing the service?", then let's talk. Otherwise, >you are going to have to accuse every business that charges for its >products of being guilty of conducting "marketing schemes". Others were adding a tone of moralism to the discussion, look back at the messages. Why would I "accuse" anyone of "marketing schemes"??? I never said there was anything evil going on. Quite the opposite, if the TELCOs found that free DA increased their business enough to more than pay for the DA (which is why DA was free in the first place) by facilitating the use of telephone services then all power to them, everyone wins. It's entirely possible that AT&T and MCI and Sprint etc get the sum benefit of this so it might not be worth bickering over problems you describe, or they could account the total DA's and come up with some scheme to distribute these costs among themselves from their advertising budgets. All I'm saying is that it's not as obvious as people are presenting that "DA costs money, therefore it must be direct-charged". Does Sears charge for their catalogues? There's a lot of precedent to helping people find your products for free, that's all DA is.