Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!accuvax.nwu.edu!nucsrl!telecom-request From: John Higdon Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom Subject: Re: Touchtone Fee Abolished in CA Message-ID: <9364@accuvax.nwu.edu> Date: 27 Jun 90 10:02:04 GMT Sender: news@accuvax.nwu.edu Reply-To: John Higdon Organization: Green Hills and Cows Lines: 66 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 459, Message 9 of 14 Isaac Rabinovitch writes: > Why should the telco spend even a little extra > for a feature if they can't charge extra for providing it? Maybe just to provide more up-to-date service. > It is true that if they just passed the extra cost of call waiting, But what IS this extra cost? You can't get a generic for any switch today that doesn't have the usual custom calling features built in. Frankly, I anticipated that there would be at least someone who didn't read what I said. But a better example was this: Heath Roberts writes: > This isn't quite true. Telephone companies have to pay quite a bit for > the software (and sometimes hardware) to provide these advanced > features. Call waiting, call forwarding, and three-way calling are not, repeat not advanced features. They have been part and parcel of stock generics for over twenty years. Try to buy a switch without them. > Software from NT often costs as much as the switch. And which release does not contain the usual custom calling? How much cheaper is it than that which does? Are the fees based on how many customers are subscribing to the features? If not, wouldn't it be better for the telco to charge everyone (spread the cost around)? > ANY switch requires more tone receivers to support more TT lines. > They're getting cheaper, so this is becoming a moot point. The > current-break detector used for pulse-dial lines is still cheaper, > though. Are you saying that there are electronic (analog or digital) CO switches out there that are not 100% TT equipped? What backwater telco could possibly be that cheap (or stupid)? I'm not being a wise guy; I'd really like to know. Not even Pac*Bell would be that silly. > Once again, the software required for custom calling features > costs the telco quite a bit. Then again, TT dialing saves the telco > money since wrong numbers are less common and dialing is faster, > thereby reducing overhead (non-talk) time to complete a call. My original point was: if telcos are expected to charge for custom calling, then why not TT? To say that TT reduces costs for various reasons is disingenuous. It could just as legitimately be said that call waiting increases revenues for the telco by allowing calls to be completed that would otherwise end in busy signals. Or that forwarding allows the telco to charge twice for one call, or that three-way encourages more calls (and more call revenue). As a sidebar, GTE Mobilnet dropped all of its monthly charges for all of its six custom calling features and just provide them as part of the service to its contract customers (at a reduced overall monthly rate at that). If features cost so much to provide (or don't intrinsically generate revenue) why would Mobilnet bother? John Higdon | P. O. Box 7648 | +1 408 723 1395 john@bovine.ati.com | San Jose, CA 95150 | M o o !