Xref: utzoo comp.misc:3994 alt.bbs:204
Path: utzoo!hoptoad!amdcad!sun!pitstop!sundc!seismo!uunet!labrea!agate!ucbvax!rutgers!att!whuts!homxb!homxc!halle
From: halle@homxc.UUCP (J.HALLE)
Newsgroups: comp.misc,alt.bbs
Subject: Re: Houston bbs's vs SW Bell - more
Message-ID: <4078@homxc.UUCP>
Date: 4 Nov 88 18:22:05 GMT
References: <4252@moray.UUCP> <1933@uokmax.UUCP> <3940@homxc.UUCP> <1087@igloo.UUCP>
Distribution: usa
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories, Holmdel
Lines: 64

In article <1087@igloo.UUCP>, learn@igloo.UUCP (william vajk) writes:
> When setting the rate structures for outgoing calls, it is alleged that the
> cost of the entire call, from point of origin, through all the switches, and
> on through the destination are borne by the originating caller.

Not true.  However the usage sensitive revenue recovery is from the originator.
This is not semantics, but a subtlety.

> When setting the rates for phone lines, it is alleged that the monthly basic
> fees cover the costs of a line which is idle 100.00% of the time.
 
Not true.  The monthly basic fees include the equipment, copper, and all
allocated pieces of embedded plant from the serving wire center to the network
termination at the house.  It also includes a portion of the switch on which
the line terminates, as well as other costs associated with the office, such
as maintenance, operations support, administration, ...

> The incoming use is covered, the outgoing use is covered. These rates,
> including "fair profit" are negotiated with the Public Utilities Commission
> in every state.
 
Incoming is only covered if the amount of usage is around what the expected
norm is on which equipment was engineered and on which tariff requests were
based.  As for negotiating with the PUCs, some are fair and some are not.  The
"fair profit," actually rate of return on investment, is often a smokescreen
which cuts both ways.  A good accountant can make it whatever is desired.

> < Let me offer an alternative.  How about if all lines are charged based on the
> < amount of time the line is busy, i.e. you get billed during incoming and
> < outgoing calls, but not when the phone is on hook.  How would you feel then?
> The costs borne at this time by the originating caller would have to be
> reduced in order to maintain the "fair profit" levels agreed to by the
> operating companies. As matters stand, the "fair profit" levels for the
> telephony monopolies are in keeping with the agreements made with the
> various states.

Not necessarily.  It would depend on the traffic mix.  Also, remember that
residences are not paying their fair share.

> < I could go on, but I've made my point.  I see nothing unfair about what the
> < phone company is trying to do, and in fact they are giving the BBSs a break
> < by not doing what they really ought to do if they were able.

> An opinion, yes. Realistic, no.

Huh?

> < (Side issue.  The reporter who wrote the original article cannot be called a
> < reporter in any real sense of the word.  He editorialized unmercifully, and
> < made a number of unfounded and totally off-the-wall insinuations.  Yellow
> < journalism at its best.)
> And I suppose we'll hear that you have absolutely no bias regarding phone 
> rates. Can you say "knee jerk ?"  I knew you could.

That's right.  I have no bias regarding the phone rates charged by the BOCs.
Of course I'd prefer that NJ Bell charged me as little as possible, but I'd
happily pay a little more now if it means not paying a lot more later.  I was
merely stating the facts.

The only "knee jerk" reaction I had was that unfounded and patently false
and ridiculous allegations have no business being disguised as reporting.
If it's an editorial, tag it as such.

J. C. Halle