Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!wuarchive!decwrl!hayes.fai.alaska.edu!accuvax.nwu.edu!nucsrl!telecom-request
From: bill@toto.info.com (Bill Cerny)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Re: The 900 Sleaze Keeps Rolling In!
Message-ID: <12950@accuvax.nwu.edu>
Date: 1 Oct 90 18:34:46 GMT
Sender: news@accuvax.nwu.edu
Organization: TELECOM Digest
Lines: 36
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 706, Message 1 of 13


In article <12801@accuvax.nwu.edu> dorl@vms.macc.wisc.edu (Michael
Dorl) writes:

>The real sleaze in this deal is the $9.00 (3.98 plus 1.97/minute, 2.5
>minute minimum) cost of the 900 number call you must call to claim the
>prize.  

>How does the $9.00 get divided up between the two LECs and the IXC?

A summary of usage charges for three national 900 carriers:

IXC		Per Minute*	Billing		Uncollectables

AT&T		0.30/0.25	10% of retail	(incl. with billing)
Sprint		0.35/0.28	(none)		7% (8% for call >$10)
Telesphere	0.46		0.12/call	7% - >30% of retail

*(less than 25,000 minutes/month)

In turn, the LEC gets their normal FG D per minute charge from the IXC.

I don't foresee the audiotex industry policing itself, which means
federal regulation/legislation is inevitable.  The best we could hope
for would include the consumer protection features of Pacific*Bell's
900 service (viz., a "grace period" during which program ID and call
charges are given _before_ billing begins).  Then the "900 = sleaze"
hysteria will fade, and we'll flame somebody else.  ;-)

Humble request: when bashing a 900 program, please include the 900
number (personal theory: Telesphere 900 numbers receive the most
complaints, AT&T the fewest).


Bill Cerny
bill@toto.info.com   |   attmail: !denwa!bill