Path: utzoo!attcan!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!rutgers!bellcore!texbell!vector!telecom-gateway From: ami!royc@uunet.uu.net (roy crabtree) Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom Subject: Re: Moderator Replies: MCI vrs. AT&T Plans Message-ID: Date: 9 May 89 18:29:52 GMT Sender: news@vector.Dallas.TX.US Organization: Access Methods, inc. Lines: 46 Approved: telecom-request@vector.dallas.tx.us X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@vector.dallas.tx.us X-TELECOM-Digest: volume 9, issue 159, message 6 of 8 In article , telecom@eecs.nwu.edu (TELECOM Moderator) writes: > Michael Chin, in the previous message, questions my comments last weekend > regarding the new MCI Long Distance plan for residence subscribers. He > asks, 'why was this posted so early?' [elided] > Not to worry, Mr. Chin! I'm sure AT&T will have something for me on the > subject before long! They always do..... > > Then Mr. Chin says if I am going to mention the AT&T Reach Out Plans, > I should do so accurately and completely. Aside from the fact that there [elided] > Mr. Chin points out that by paying extra to AT&T, one can get an additional > fifteen percent discount on evening calls. This is true, however MCI's new > plan charges *nothing extra* for the evening hours, and gives the overnight [elided] > AT&T also allows you to pay $2 extra per month on Reach Out America and > have your Calling Card/Call Me card calls billed at Reach Out rate You've been lambasted as pro-AT&T; now it sems like you're being hit for being anti-AT&T!!! One comment relative to the new plans, however: These are sounding one whole heckuvalot like the variable rate structures PUCs (thersthatwordagain) used to love so eliminate so much. How about this as an idea: Have the common carriers be _required_ to print on the bill to the customer what any available alternate carier would have charged (overall, mind you!) for the same calls, and _require_ them to print a detailed comparative analysis on demand for a customer against other carriers. To be fair this comparison should be forced on a "best service price" basis; i.e., no fair comparing the best AT&T rate with the worst Sprint rate. A more palatable form of this would be to require common carriers to print a cost analysis to a consumer against actual usage versus known rate structures with an eye toward _minimizing_the_bill_, based on past usage, or to allow a user to ask for an estimate given a prospective usage pattern. If you realy want to spook the carriers, the FCC could require a carrier to give the customer a bill based on the lowest possible bill among all plans over a running year interval of time ... yes, I'm dreaming .... roy a. crabtree uunet!ami!royc 201-566-8584