Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.3 4.3bsd-beta 6/6/85; site ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!mhuxn!ihnp4!ucbvax!telecom
From: telecom@ucbvax.UUCP
Newsgroups: mod.telecom
Subject: charging for Touch-Tone
Message-ID: <8601091615.AA07039@lycaon.UUCP>
Date: Thu, 9-Jan-86 11:15:16 EST
Article-I.D.: lycaon.8601091615.AA07039
Posted: Thu Jan  9 11:15:16 1986
Date-Received: Fri, 10-Jan-86 07:32:56 EST
Sender: daemon@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU
Organization: The ARPA Internet
Lines: 17
Approved: telecom@mit-xx.arpa

Originally, there were three rationales used for extra charges for Touch-Tone
(btw, it's no longer a trademark; after the divestiture, AT&T wanted to keep
it for the equipment, and the BOCs wanted it for the service, so it was just
thrown wide open):  (a) to recover the direct costs and development costs;
(b) to discourage everyone from switching immediately, thus creating a heavy
demand for new phone sets when the old (leased) sets were still perfectly good;
and (c) (the kicker) as part of the explicit policy of subsidizing basic
service, the regulatory agencies decided to charge for *value received*.
Thus, since people did like Touch-Tone better, it was rational to charge
for it.


		--Steve Bellovin
		AT&T Bell Laboratories

P.S.  This is entirely unofficial; nothing I'm saying is in any way the
policy of AT&T, etc.