Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!gem.mps.ohio-state.edu!uakari.primate.wisc.edu!uwm.edu!rutgers!netsys!vector!telecom-gateway From: rmadison@euler.berkeley.edu (Linc Madison) Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom Subject: Re: Possible California PUC Changes Message-ID: Date: 11 Oct 89 21:59:40 GMT Sender: news@vector.Dallas.TX.US Organization: University of California, Berkeley Lines: 23 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 442, message 9 of 9 > The story below is from the Los Angeles Times of October 1, 1989, > > Rewriting the Book on Phone Rates > by Bruce Keppel > > (San Francisco)... what may be the most far-reaching regulatory >proposal every made by the California Public Utilities Commission. The big regulatory reform *I'm* waiting for is on in-state long distance charges. It costs me more to call Los Angeles at NIGHT rate than to call the East Coast during DAY rate -- on the SAME long distance company (true for AT&T, Sprint, and MCI, all three). Even more expensive than calling Los Angeles (400 miles) is calling Ukiah (150 or 200 miles), because the latter is in my LATA and thus Pac*Bell monopoly territory. Indeed, it seems that most of my phone calls are charged INVERSELY proportional to distance. What POSSIBLE justification can there be for leaving in-state rates so high? I pay six or seven times as much for some in-state calls as I would for comparable-distance interstate calls. Linc Madison rmadison@euler.berkeley.edu