Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!mailrus!accuvax.nwu.edu!nucsrl!telecom-request
From: gnu@toad.com (John Gilmore)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Re: TDD Long Distance Discount
Message-ID: <8374@accuvax.nwu.edu>
Date: 29 May 90 05:51:31 GMT
Sender: news@accuvax.nwu.edu
Organization: TELECOM Digest
Lines: 49
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 394, Message 9 of 10


> 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...

KLH@nic.ddn.mil (Ken Harrenstien) wrote:

> Indeed, this is the rationale.  The standard figure in the literature
> I've seen has been a 5:1 ratio; that is, a conversation via TDD takes
> five times as long as a voice call to convey the same information.

So, since I use Telebit modems and can send in two minutes what would
take thirty minutes by voice, I should be charged 15x the voice rate for
my long distance calls?  I should move netnews over dozens of TDD's,
so I can get those really cheap rates!

Not only do deaf people burn up more time on the lines than the
average subscriber, but they get charged less for it?  Why don't they
get surcharged instead, like BBS systems in some places?

Besides the general public being ripped off to pay the phone bills of
the deaf, there is also the topic of TDD design itself.  Years ago, a
few companies made combination TDD's with 300-baud modems as well as
Weitbrecht modems built in.  Most deaf people didn't buy them.  That's
why they are now stuck with 45 baud modems -- they didn't buy faster
ones when they were offerred.  Nowadays you could get 1200 or 2400 for
the same price (it's all in one chip) but still they buy 45's.

What is worse, California phone subscribers are also being ripped off
so PacBell can BUY these obsolete devices and GIVE them to the deaf!
I already object to their forcing me to subsidize deaf people as a
class, but if I chose myself to subsidize any deaf people, I'd at
least give them a decent modem, or a fax machine, not this trash.

> Oh yeah, while I'm ranting about bills, [various rants about the
> California Relay Service, a "free" service that lets deaf people TDD
> to the service which reads their message to hearing people and vice
> verse.  By "free" I mean "you and I pay for it, not its users".]

Why isn't there a free relay service for email users to send to and
receive from fax machines?  I mean, we are at a severe disadvantage
when *everybody* has a fax machine except us!  Or howabout a
Fax-to-voice service for the blind?  And a voice-to-explanations
service for the stupid?  How can you advocate helping the deaf without
helping all the other "deserving" multitudes?

Personally I think helping people should be voluntary.  I don't like
the kind of "help" the government gives.