Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!cs.utexas.edu!sdd.hp.com!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!wuarchive!mit-eddie!bu.edu!telecom-request From: 0004133373@mcimail.com (Donald E. Kimberlin) Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom Subject: How Bad is your Intrastate Rate Rip-off? Message-ID: <61564@bu.edu.bu.edu> Date: 28 Jul 90 06:34:00 GMT Sender: news@bu.edu.bu.edu Organization: Telecommunications Network Architects, Safety Harbor, FL Lines: 31 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 2 of 8 A recurring thread in the Digest has to do with the intrastate dial telephone rate in every state, explainable only as a vestige of the politics of Utility Commissioners in every state proliferating the 1913 notion that "long distance MUST subsidize local rates." I have no surcease for any reader about the rip-off; it just continues. But, at least there's a report that might show where you stand. The July, 1990 {Communications News} printed in part a report from the National Utility Service showing the five most and five least expensive states for daytime three minute intra-LATA DDD as follows: MOST EXPENSIVE LEAST EXPENSIVE West Virginia $1.44 Delaware 39 cents Vermont 1.07 New Jersey 40 cents Maine .98 Minnesota 47 cents Louisiana .98 Pennsylvania 49 cents Hawaii .94 Illinois 50 cents NATIONAL AVERAGE 70 CENTS So, place yourself on that scale and weep with all of us. Only thing I find curious is that it largely seems that poor states have high rates, while wealthier states have lower rates. It may be some proof that intraLATA prices are subsidizing local telephone prices for the lower-income areas. But, the amount of the subsidy Telcos claim from LD within their territories must be huge. Can it really be necessary to THAT extent?