Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!accuvax.nwu.edu!nucsrl!telecom-request From: "Yossi (Joel" Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom Subject: Re: Alert: AT&T May Consider Removing TDD Long Distance Discount Message-ID: <8338@accuvax.nwu.edu> Date: 27 May 90 06:13:38 GMT Sender: news@accuvax.nwu.edu Reply-To: "Yossi (Joel" Organization: Technion, Israel Inst. Tech., Haifa Israel Lines: 34 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 391, Message 2 of 12 In article <8241@accuvax.nwu.edu> mcb@presto.ig.com (Michael C. Berch) writes: >In the referenced article, CER2520@ritvax.bitnet (Curtis E. Reid) writes: >> I heard a disturbing news that AT&T may consider removing the TDD Long >> Distance Toll Call discounts when AT&T does its own billing. [...] >> Can any TELECOM readers comment on this? AT&T, don't consider >> removing TDD discounts!! >Please don't take this the wrong way, but what is the justification >for discounts for TDD customers? I can see doing it if the bandwidth >of TDD devices is so much smaller than voice that deaf people are >effectively paying more for less effective use of the same circuit for >the same amount of time as hearing people, but I have not heard that >argument brought up. (And in which case I think there is a good >argument for the discount, or at least a special TDD rate structure.) The rational is that the same phone call should cost the same to everyone. For the same reason that folks with old switch equipment aren't charged extra for the additional upkeep costs, TDD users shouldn't be charged extra just because they have to converse at 48 baud. Also, at least in the past, AT&T has been a service-oriented business. They don't charge for wrong numbers, for busy signals, calls that were never completed, etc. They regularly absorb some operating costs to keep their services attractive and equitable. Joel (joel@techunix.technion.ac.il -or- joel@techunix.BITNET)