Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!wuarchive!texbell!vector!telecom-gateway From: munnari!bunyip.cc.uq.oz.au!ggm@uunet.uu.net (George Michaelson) Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom Subject: Re: Directory Enquiries (UK) Message-ID: Date: 11 Sep 89 07:20:37 GMT Sender: news@vector.Dallas.TX.US Organization: Prentice Computer Centre, Queensland Uni, Australia Lines: 54 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 366, message 5 of 8 wnp@attctc.dallas.tx.us (Wolf Paul) writes: >In article K.Hopkins%computer- >science.nottingham.ac.uk@nsfnet-relay.ac.uk writes: > >Here's a UK view of charging for DA calls. > >....... > >provided for us by default so we expect to be given it without charge. Most > >people over here usually complain that BT is being immoral (yep, that's the > >word they use) when they try charging for 192 as there is no other source > >for the information 192 provides. >While I can understand that argument, nonetheless it is flawed: not only >**finding** a phone number, but **calling** a phone number is available >only through a service the telco provides -- since making a phone call is >otherwise impossible, should the telco be prohibited from charging for that >service? Since driving a car is impossible unless you get one from a dealer >or the manufacturer, should the dealer or manufacturer be required to provide >it free of charge? Had BT not been a state owned and run monopoly within living memory, your expectations would be more correct. For many of us, BT (and the GPO in general when they were one) represented a commonly owned *NOT FOR PROFIT* service (albiet one that could and sometimes did make money, which of course was creamed off into the exchequer rather than re-invested or even (shock horror) rebated...) and our views were formed as a result. Even in a post-thatcherist world BT has cross-subsidization and other requirements placed upon it which make it more than just a money-making enterprise. In a world where the phone can be a lifeline, but one denied to many because of more general economic deprivation, the phone-provider can (and in my view should) have certain moral obligations to meet. Before BT left the public fold it was made quite clear that certain services, such as DA and maintenence of phoneboxes were viewed as essential. BT has consistently tried to renege on these and other social commitments, to the extent that OFTEL has been forced to act, and its image as the most complained-about utility only recently was assuaged by very marked improvements in staffing directed towards payphone repairs. I understand one of the first "steamlining" activities to take place was the CENTRALIZING of all DA enquiries. Of course they under-estimated the number of lines required, and call-queing was the norm rather than the exception. Yes, public ownership was not always rosy. The state's blatent creaming off of all profits and separation from the GPO did not (in my opinion) help. Nonetheless, Once upon a time BT was *not* just a company selling a resource, and if some of our expectations reflect that, so much the better I say! -George -- Internet: G.Michaelson@cc.uq.oz.au Phone: +61 7 377 4079 Postal: George Michaelson, Prentice Computer Centre Queensland University, St Lucia, QLD Australia 4067.