Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!cs.utexas.edu!swrinde!mips!decwrl!hayes.fai.alaska.edu!accuvax.nwu.edu!nucsrl!telecom-request From: john@bovine.ati.com (John Higdon) Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom Subject: Re: US Long Distance Billing Scheme is a Crock Message-ID: <10218@accuvax.nwu.edu> Date: 29 Jul 90 21:48:34 GMT Sender: news@accuvax.nwu.edu Reply-To: John Higdon Organization: Green Hills and Cows 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 527, Message 7 of 8 Charles Buckley writes: [a complete and informative description of the commonly used method for billing in other countries] There are two major problems with adopting this appoach without modifications. First is the pulses themselves. All that I have heard indicates that they sometimes cause problems with modems. My system transfers much data to Japan (who uses pulses) and there appears to be no problem, but I have heard stories to the contrary. Second is the lack of detailed billing. Given the potential for error in ANY billing system, how can you justify receiving a bill for "X units -- Total Y Dollars"? No detail; no way to track down errors. I doubt that US residents would be willing to lose the detail that appears on the bill. It's bad enough that Pac*Bell bills local calls in this manner, but it would be unthinkable to receive an invoice for, say $300.00 and no detail on it whatsoever. (This IS what they do in Japan; in fact the phone company just takes it out of your bank account!) How neat and simple :-(. > 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, See the above caveat about modem use. > 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, You have answered your own question. The prime concern of American business is not involved with saving you money. A tradition in this country seems to be, "If you make the call from anywhere other than your own, personal phone, it will cost you more money." > 4. to largely dispense with huge, complex, error-prone, fraud-prone > billing networks which funnel call charges, I fear that with non-detailed billing you might simply have the illusion that you had dispensed with "huge, complex, error-prone, fraud-prone billing networks" since you would have no way of knowing if this was indeed the case. With no billing info, how would you know? I agree that simplified (and cheaper) coin service would be a real plus. The system of "debit cards" for payphones in other countries is quite attractive. > 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. Devil's advocate time. Phones that read credit cards, handle alternate billing, etc., cost real money. The surcharge is what pays for this. If you don't use that form of billing, why should you pay? If you do, who should pick up the cost if it isn't you via the surcharge? Alternate bill DOES cost more. The only alternative to collecting that cost from the immediate user is to spread it over all users. Is that fair? > 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. Agreed. But do you really want our "regulators" to come up with the new plans? Can you name a situation when this hasn't resulted in some sort of debacle? Our billing system could use many improvements, but from past experience, I would suggest great caution. It really does matter who makes the changes and how they are made. There is a bit of a conflict here. Any system that dispenses with call detail is unacceptable. Any system that retains detail and offers alternative billing arrangements will cost more to record calls billed in that manner. You can't get something for nothing. John Higdon | P. O. Box 7648 | +1 408 723 1395 john@bovine.ati.com | San Jose, CA 95150 | M o o !