Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utcsrgv.UUCP Path: utzoo!utcsrgv!dave From: dave@utcsrgv.UUCP (Dave Sherman) Newsgroups: net.consumers Subject: Re: bothersome phone calls Message-ID: <4950@utcsrgv.UUCP> Date: Thu, 19-Jul-84 16:17:48 EDT Article-I.D.: utcsrgv.4950 Posted: Thu Jul 19 16:17:48 1984 Date-Received: Thu, 19-Jul-84 16:24:17 EDT References: <36@whuxl.UUCP> <3313@brl-tgr.ARPA> Organization: The Law Society of Upper Canada, Toronto Lines: 33 In article <3313@brl-tgr.ARPA> wmartin@brl-tgr.ARPA (Will Martin) writes: ~| It was my impression that the justification for charging for having an ~| unlisted number was that the telco incurred more "information" calls ~| as a result of people not finding your name & number in the book. This ~| was prior to the current practice of charging callers for "information" ~| calls, which I believe is now just about universal. Yes, but we only get charged for calls to directory assistance when the number is in the phone book (i.e., no charge if they can't find the number, or if it's a new listing). So charging for directory assistance doesn't reduce the cost of people calling for unlisted numbers. Anyway, if you know a number should be in the book, and you know it's not a new listing, why bother calling d.a. at all? ~| This latter should ~| eliminate the costs the telcos used to justify charging the holder of ~| an unlisted number, right? I'd always assumed the charge was related to the cost of keeping a separate list of people who should be billed but not listed. (Or of keeping a field associated with every billed name to indicate whether they should be listed or not.) There's definitely a cost associated with storing that extra information for millions of people, even if the variable cost of storing the "unlisted" bit for a particular user is virtually nil. Dave Sherman Toronto -- {allegra,cornell,decvax,ihnp4,linus,utzoo}!utcsrgv!dave or David_Sherman%Wayne-MTS%UMich-MTS.Mailnet@MIT-Multics.ARPA