Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!wuarchive!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!casbah.acns.nwu.edu!accuvax.nwu.edu!nucsrl!telecom-request
From: sichermn@beach.csulb.edu (Jeff Sicherman)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Re: Illinois Bell Reduces Rates For Poor People
Message-ID: <15829@accuvax.nwu.edu>
Date: 5 Jan 91 18:01:55 GMT
Sender: news@accuvax.nwu.edu
Organization: Cal State Long Beach
Lines: 48
Approved: Telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 11, Issue 11, Message 5 of 8


In article <15805@accuvax.nwu.edu> telecom@eecs.nwu.edu (TELECOM
Moderator) writes:

>It seems like the more things change in the telecom industry, the more
>they stay the same: Here we are coming back to the concept laid out by
>Ted Vail at the start of the twentieth century, that universal
>telephone service is a desirable goal. 

>But Vail and his associates said *all* residence service should be
>subsidized by business service. The main reason that business service
>has always been more expensive than residential service in the USA is
>because of the belief of early telephone people that universal service
>was desirable for all, and especially desirable from the point of view
>of business subscribers.  Business places would find phone service
>particularly useful if they could call residences.  So let the
>businesses pay the subsidy to insure phone service for all, argued
>Vail, and that thinking has prevailed since.

  It seems to me that the *real* problem is that phone service is
really a commodity that ought to be strictly priced based upon level
and time of usage but at a much lower unit cost. Then poor people
could easily afford to pay for low usage rates, BBS's could be free
but the callers would *all* pay for the time consumed (NOte I am
proposing that there be *no* free-calling areas, just very cheap per
minute charges) and the big users would pay their fair share for heavy
usage.

  I am obviously not an economist on phone system matters (or any
other for that matter) but it seems we are paying phone companies for
a lot more things than the real cost of providing phone service and
maintaining the system. I am with those who say that the wires ought
to be like sewers, water, etc. and be municipally owned and maintained
and the supplying of dialtone be deregulated and/or auctioned to the
lowest *qualified* bidder within an area.

>What happens when *I* can no longer afford my phone service? 

  I guess you'll have to cut down on some of the curiosity-satisfying
calls that you make and report here, cancel some of the fancy features
you have opted for, and live with less lines. Living outside of means
does not entitle you to a subsidy, but a minimum level of service of a
utility which is essential for health and safety in our society at a
price affordable to those who would suffer either without it or at the
regular rates is a desireable and even cost-effective social goal.


Jeff Sicherman