Path: utzoo!telecom-request Date: Fri, 14 Jun 91 04:35:15 -0400 From: westmark!mole-end!mat@uunet.uu.net Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom Subject: Telco Depreciation Schedule is Unfair Message-ID: Organization: TELECOM Digest Sender: Telecom@eecs.nwu.edu 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 457, Message 6 of 12 Lines: 27 >> Also, telco *could* now >> provide 'programmable forward on busy / no answer' if they wanted to. > This isn't available on all Ameritech switches (especially those nice > 1A ESS(tm) switches). Ameritech Mobile's oldest switch is probably > two years old; they ditched all the original switches. > Try to talk the regulators into allowing the wholesale replacement of > all those old(er) switches!!! This is a MAJOR consideration. Telco equipment has to be depreciated over a 15 to 20 year period. It all used to be 20 years until AT&T took some senators and House representatives into its factories and said `Can you tell the difference between the telephone circuit boards and the computer circuit boards? Then why can't we depreciate them on the same schedules?' They didn't get 5-year depreciation, but they got 15 year depreciation on some things. What this means is that the last fellow into the market on a given technology cycle has the advantage of the better, cheaper, more capable equipment and nobody else can afford to upgrade. (This man's opinions are his own.) From mole-end Mark Terribile