Path: utzoo!attcan!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!sun-barr!texsun!texbell!vector!telecom-gateway From: langz@asylum.sf.ca.us (Lang Zerner) Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom Subject: Touch-tone charges going away? Message-ID: Date: 6 Jun 89 22:15:10 GMT Sender: news@vector.Dallas.TX.US Reply-To: langz@asylum.UUCP (Lang Zerner) Organization: The Great Escape, Inc. Lines: 33 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 190, message 2 of 7 When I got my basic service installed here in Palo Alto, CA, the guy on the other end asked if I wanted the touch-tone "option". I asked him what the additional cost was, and took it. Then I gave him the old "Did you know..." about how when the phone-using public was paying for the research that led to touch-tone, it was told (correctly) that touch-tone would bring down the cost of running the phone system and (incorrectly) that the savings would trickle down to the consumers. He was surprisingly knowledgeable for a sales rep, and we had a nice conversation about the current state of digital systems implementation and arbitrary restrictions on ISDN services. He also said that "PacBell is lobbying (some regulating body (the PUC?)) to kill the extra charge for touch-tone". PacBell is a business. It wouldn't try to kill the touch-tone charge unless (a) they believe that the cost of supporting pulse dialing will soon exceed the revenue of touch-tone charges, or (b) they have been overcome by an irrational urge to charge for a service proportionally to its cost. If PacBell is anything like other BOCs I've done business with, I find (b) to be exceedingly unlikely. Anyone have any evidence suggesting (a)? Any other reasons PacBell would be lobbying for such a move? Any evidence that the sales rep was mistaken (i.e. that PacBell is making no such lobbying effort)? I have always felt that tone "service" charges were one of the most irrational BOC charges. There is no extra cost to the BOC, and in some cases it results in *lower* operating costs. I am very interested to learn if there is any truth to the rumor that the charge may be removed. -- Be seeing you... --Lang Zerner ARPA:langz@athena.mit.edu MX:langz@asylum.sf.ca.us UUCP:bionet!asylum!langz "...and every morning we had to go and LICK the road clean with our TONGUES!"