Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!wuarchive!ukma!usenet.ins.cwru.edu!gatech!ncar!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!casbah.acns.nwu.edu!nucsrl!telecom-request From: sichermn@beach.csulb.edu (Jeff Sicherman) Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom Subject: Re: Telephone Surcharges for Deaf, Poor Anger IBT Customers Message-ID: Date: 22 Feb 91 16:45:10 GMT Sender: news@casbah.acns.nwu.edu Organization: Cal State Long Beach Lines: 66 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 152, Message 4 of 7 Originator: telecom@delta.eecs.nwu.edu In article seals@uncecs.edu (Larry W. Seals) writes: > In this day and age, it seems like those things that used to be > privileges are now being considered as rights. In addition, those who > can afford the privileges are being asked to subsidize these "rights" > via hidden charges or "access fees". I pay higher insurance premiums > because of the uninsured motorists, even though (in NC) you aren't > supposed to be issued a license or plates without proof of insurance > (and while driving is a PRIVILEGE, some regard it as a God given > right). This thread has arisen before, in fact I even responded to the previous incarnation, but then political arguments are never settled. I'm not sure about you're terminology. I doubt that at phone service is being claimed to be a 'right'. All the discussion that I've heard is as to whther it's good public policy to deny people access to things that are an essential part of modern life. In the case of the handicapped, the issue is that the design of the equipment and/or the system is discriminatory. I also question your argument about 'hidden' fees. The utility subsidization fees that I've seen (in California) are all right there on the bill. > There seems to be that same mentality at work here. Just because the > telephone is ubiquitous does not mean that the service it renders has > become a right available to anyone for asking. Nobody gets it 'just for the asking', any more than you do. They get it because they request service and then must qualify for the subsidy based upon established need. > Given the number of goods and services I pay for on which there are > these hidden subsidies for those who want the privilege without the > cost, how far are we down the road to a socialist society without even > knowing it? Life is full of hidden subsidies. The number of things that I subsidize with *my* taxes that I don't necessarily approve of would fill the digest for a week. The number of ways the phone company subsidizes services that don't benefit me is also immense (see other digest sources). I think we know how far we are 'down the raod to socialism' we are. Just societies don't have to be pure based upon your economic philosphies. Perhaps you should read Les Miserables (again?). > Anyway, though it sounds cynical, there are phone booths and collect > calls and other methods of reaching out and touching someone without > reaching out and toucing my wallet. You're right, it sounds cynical, not to mention cruel. That is a much more expensive way of communicating than the small service charges that are paid and would exacerbate the poverty conditions, requiring higher public payments (but then, you disapprove of those too). Maybe the agencies that these people must communicate with should start accepting all those expensive collect calls, boosting their expenses. > Keep your flammage - you may need it to stay warm... Having a different opinion, even a different set of values is not flammage. [Moderator's Note: With these two messages we must close this thread which is becoming less telecom-related with each posting. Thanks. PAT]