Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!mit-eddie!bu.edu!telecom-request From: ceb@csli.stanford.edu (Charles Buckley) Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom Subject: US Long Distance Billing Scheme is a Crock Message-ID: <61563@bu.edu.bu.edu> Date: 28 Jul 90 19:55:07 GMT Sender: news@bu.edu.bu.edu Organization: TELECOM Digest Lines: 88 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 525, Message 1 of 8 In article <10082@accuvax.nwu.edu> robertsn@iosg.enet.dec.com (Nigel Roberts 0860 578600) writes: >One thing that does seem much more difficult than I'd expected is >obtaining a U.S calling card (e.g. AT&T, Sprint, MCI). >
phone credit cards deleted> Practically every other country in the world I've been to bills long distance calls for a fixed unit price (about a nickel) for a variable unit of time (unlimited down to a second or so), instead of the US scheme whereby a fixed unit of time (a minute) is billed at a variable price (free up to several dollars). The former, most popular scheme makes it possible: 1. to have telephones which receive pulses and count how much the call costs (so you can reimburse your host for it on the spot if appropriate), which eliminates the need for itemized monthly billing, 2. to have inexpensive pay phones which accept fixed price debit cards that are debitted for the call (according to the number of pulses received), allowing you to telephone as easily as from home, 3. to make a short, 10 second call for a low price, therefore, to a far away place, just to say "Hi, this is , please call me back on pay station ", which eliminates the need for most collect calls, 4. to largely dispense with huge, complex, error-prone, fraud-prone billing networks which funnel call charges, yours and the last four guys who overheard your credit card number, each with hefty calling-card or operator billing surcharges which average (for me) 30% of the price of each call, back to your monthly bill, which (in Cal.) you have to pay every month by check, and can't have debitted from your bank account automatically, and 5. last but not least, to avoid the problems Mr. Roberts complains about. When was the last time any 'red-blooded American' tried to make an international call using coins? You get the automated voice saying "Deposit ten dollars and 30 cents, please, for three minutes", which leaves you just stunned, staring at a coin slot which takes nickels, dimes, and quarters. After asking at the next store for ten dollars worth of quarters (if you're lucky enough to find one around which is open) and getting your head bitten off ("We're not a bank, you know!". No kidding.), you tends to give up, and the impression of telephoning in the US as being similar to telephoning in Baghdad has just been validated. WHY, WHY, WHY is the United States still mainly dependent on a system which has so many procedural liabilities built into it??? Agreed, the telecom employees who are stuck with providing service amid these obstacles do about as good job as can be expected, but they also do a good job insulating those who employ them from just how ineptly conceived things are, which means that things remain the same, and will likely do so for a long time to come. Agreed, when telephoning from home, it is *much* cheaper in the US than most other places I know, but that doesn't legitimize resting on one's laurels and not further reducing overhead. Surely there must be better ways of generating employment than artifically maintaining a need for large numbers of clerks and phone answerers who have ample opportunity to perfect their technique at putting you on hold. Surely corporate planners and strategists would be relieved not to have to worry about taking into account a large billing apparatus in their plans. Other countries with a far smaller market and far less capital have managed to put in place better solutions. As I see it, the regulatory agencies of the US and the utilities which lead them around by the nose (until the agencies get fed up and balk) have no excuse on this one, and should take corrective measures forthwith. That is, if regulatory agencies still know how to do anything other than give utilities a symbolic hard time before finally giving in. Now is an especially good time to do it, since one sees evidence that the nation's coin station stock will be largely changed out over the next few years. The new models I've seen can read bank cards or phone company credit cards (as if anyone actually carried the latter around), but don't tell you how much the call in progress costs. You still have to pay the huge surcharge. Can't we do better than this? I wouldn't at all mind continuing to pay the surcharges, if I knew the proceeds were going to finance putting in place a more flexible system such as the one I've described, which would no longer make such surcharges necessary.