Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!usc!apple!oliveb!tymix!cirrusl!dhesi%cirrusl From: dhesi%cirrusl@oliveb.ATC.olivetti.com (Rahul Dhesi) Newsgroups: comp.unix.wizards Subject: Re: FCC doing it again... Message-ID: <1144@cirrusl.UUCP> Date: 1 Dec 89 02:23:28 GMT References: <1989Nov28.011514.4193@virtech.uucp> <246@cfa.HARVARD.EDU> Sender: news@cirrusl.UUCP Reply-To: dhesi%cirrusl@oliveb.ATC.olivetti.com (Rahul Dhesi) Followup-To: comp.misc Organization: Cirrus Logic Inc. Lines: 27 In article <246@cfa.HARVARD.EDU> wyatt@cfa.HARVARD.EDU (Bill Wyatt) writes: >...modem calls are not the same simply because they >usually last much longer than a voice call. True. That is good reason for charging by the minute. It is not good reason for charging more for modem calls. What is really happening is that the fairest way of charging, by time and distance, is unpopular with the public. So the telephone companies keep on trying to get the same effect by other devious ways. But some parts of the country (Chicago, I believe) already charge for all phone calls by distance and time. There is no justification for imposing any new rates in such places. As for long distance calls, there is enough competition now that the long distance companies ought to be allowed to choose any charging algorithm they want. I fail to see why the FCC keeps on trying to make strange rules. Existing mechanisms, mostly measured service, do a fine job where they are being used. Where they aren't they should be. Why is this in comp.unix.wizards? (Not any more.) Rahul Dhesi UUCP: oliveb!cirrusl!dhesi