Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!uwm.edu!mailrus!accuvax.nwu.edu!nucsrl!telecom-request
From: asuvax!gtephx!mothra!bakerj@ncar.ucar.edu (Jon Baker)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Re: Questions About Local Service and Long Distance Rates
Message-ID: <10162@accuvax.nwu.edu>
Date: 26 Jul 90 16:32:10 GMT
Sender: news@accuvax.nwu.edu
Organization: gte
Lines: 21
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 519, Message 9 of 13


In article <9999@accuvax.nwu.edu>, david@cs.uow.edu.au (David E A
Wilson) writes:

> By 1985 it had risen to $190/$30 and $110/$30 and in 1989 it 
> was $225/$45. (No figure for moving.)

> Even though I had to pay the $225 I still think this reflection of the
> costs seems fairer.

I don't see how it's fairer.  It would preclude many people from
having telephones.  Is a telephone just a toy for the rich?  It may
not be a 'right', per se, but nobody should be excluded from having a
phone due to exhorbitant hook-up fees.  And, if the government offers
subsidies to lower-income households to hook up a phone, in the end
I'm paying for it anyway.  I'd much rather the money not make the trip
through Washington ... it seems some of it always disappears on the
way :-).


JB