Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!mailrus!accuvax.nwu.edu!nucsrl!telecom-request
From: curtisg@sco.com (Curtis Galloway)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Re: Pacific Bell Response To CPUC Rate Decision
Message-ID: <4142@accuvax.nwu.edu>
Date: 20 Feb 90 00:52:09 GMT
Sender: news@accuvax.nwu.edu
Organization: TELECOM Digest
Lines: 31
Approved: Telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 10, Issue 117, message 1 of 9


john@bovine.ati.com (John Higdon) writes:

>Curtis Galloway <curtisg@sco.com> quotes from Pac*Bell Bill Insert:

>[in addition to the usual stroking--this:]
>>   o We will share any earnings above a certain level

>And if you *ever* see Pac*Bell admitting that it earned 16.5, I'll be
>watching for the second coming. Before that would happen, they would
>hose down the insides of 100 COs with an acid solution, and buy new
>equipment from Pacific Telesis at inflated prices. They would be
>totally stupid to let Pac*Bell earn that much and have to give it all
>away to the suckers, oops, I mean ratepayers.

OK, I can see that.  But as a standard residential customer, does the
CPUC decision really change the bills I will pay?  Monopoly service
rates are still regulated by the CPUC.  If I never buy Centrex or
yellow pages ads, I won't notice much of a difference.  Right?  (Of
course, if Pac Bell ends up inflating prices for business users, we
all pay for it.)

By the way -- wasn't part of the agreement for Pacific Bell to
eliminate the touch-tone fee on local bills?  As of January, I was
still being billed for it.


Curt

``Dangerous'' is the word Miss Manners would use about doilies. 
			--Judith Martin