Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site lsuc.UUCP Path: utzoo!utcsri!utcs!lsuc!jimomura From: jimomura@lsuc.UUCP Newsgroups: can.politics Subject: Re: High Duties => Increased Competitiveness? Message-ID: <851@lsuc.UUCP> Date: Thu, 17-Oct-85 10:20:20 EDT Article-I.D.: lsuc.851 Posted: Thu Oct 17 10:20:20 1985 Date-Received: Thu, 17-Oct-85 10:51:49 EDT References: <2649@watcgl.UUCP> <440@looking.UUCP> Reply-To: jimomura@lsuc.UUCP (Jim Omura) Organization: Barrister & Solicitor, Toronto Lines: 32 Summary: Telecom costs Brad, I've been arguing a similar cost structure to Martin's for some time now, and even used *some* of his arguments. There's more to this than meets the eye. My own argument is that local phone costs should go up and that long distance in general should decrease (at the very least relative to current phone costs). The basis for this is the phone companies' own complaint that local calls are being heavily subsidized by long distance and special services. My own phone bill is primarily made up of long distance and special services. Why should I be subsidizing people who use the phones and pay a mere pitance because my own contact range is wider? What the heck is 'local' anyway? Where did the definition come from? As far as I'm concerned my calls at the very least in southern Ontario should *all* be considered local. For me they certainly are. As a bi-product of this approach, we may find that we will build a stronger (and economically more sound) nation. The main difference is that I don't like the idea of Tax subsidies. I think that such a diversion of funds is unnecessary. As for changes in the rate structure, however, to the extent I'd like to see them, it's clearly justified and even in some harmony with the industry's trend. Cheers! -- Jim O. -- James Omura, Barrister & Solicitor, Toronto ihnp4!utzoo!lsuc!jimomura Byte Information eXchange: jimomura Compuserve: 72205,541 MTS at WU: GKL6