Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!hellgate.utah.edu!mailrus!accuvax.nwu.edu!nucsrl!telecom-request
From: johnl@esegue.segue.boston.ma.us (John R. Levine)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Re: Strange Charges on Bill
Message-ID: <5134@accuvax.nwu.edu>
Date: 14 Mar 90 01:25:11 GMT
Sender: news@accuvax.nwu.edu
Organization: Segue Software, Cambridge MA
Lines: 23
Approved: Telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 10, Issue 170, Message 3 of 9

In article <5084@accuvax.nwu.edu> res@cbnews.ATT.COM (Robert E. Stampfli) 
writes:

> >... This charge you question, mandated by law, is to compensate the local
> > telco for providing access to the long distance carrier of your choice.

>... it would seem to me that if I request my second line be for local calls
>only, with no long distance access, that I should not be charged this fee.

This is a common misconception.  The access charge is for access to
the network, not just to LD companies.  It was really a way to
compensate the telcos for the revenue they lost from traditionally
padded long distance rates by raising all of the local rates, without
having have tarriff hearings before every state PUC in the country.
It would be a lot more honest if the judge set an expiration date for
the access charge of, say, January 1991, and all of the telcos
adjusted their rates accordingly.  I realize that the highly
politicized PUCs in many states would make it extremely difficult for
the telcos to make up the difference in any reasonable way.  Ah, well.


Regards,
John Levine, johnl@esegue.segue.boston.ma.us, {spdcc|ima|lotus}!esegue!johnl