RE>per minute charges for telephoneÉ 1/9/98
Hi,
While this is an EMC and Product safety forum, some of us may feel
that this topic is significant enough to merit a little discussion. I have
thought about this issue well before I got this e-mail. At one time, I
was in total agreement with Keith's position. While I respect and
understand this reasonable viewpoint, I don't agree that the telco
pricing plan should be stopped by governement intervention. Here's why:
1. Telephone service is a basic communications medium.
What is the difference in the telephone companies' costs if one wants
to communicate locally via a handset or a modem? Not much. So why should
one get charged a flat rate for voice communications over a handset
and per minute for data communications over the internet? I can
think of one good reason why.
a. Most can agree that a basic telephone is a necessity for most people
in
a developed society. It is a VERY efficient communication medium for
emergency situations at home and basic communications with those in
the
local community. So for the most basic services, I can see why those
in
a community would want to distribute the cost of maintaining the
basic
service over the entire community. This allows those less fortunate
than
others to afford this service, and for most to equally enjoy a basic
level
of quality regardless of income. Even so, there are still some too
poor
to afford a phone.
On the other hand, additional services that add cost to the
infrastructure
are not really necessities. I think it is pretty clear that the
overall costs
to the telephone companies to support the additional traffic presented
by
the internet are far from trivial. If they were foreced to hold the
line on
pricing, their profit margins would fall due to increased overhead of
supporting
all of this extra traffic. Is it fair that we tell them through
legislation that they
must eat the costs? I think not. So then the question becomes, how do
they
get paid for providing this extra service?
2. There are several options to recover these costs that I can think of:
a. Distribute the increased cost over all users by increasing the flat
rate that everyone pays for basic local service.
This seems totally unfair to the poor that can barely afford the
current flat rate. At the margin, a certain number of poor
households
may no longer be able to afford this service if rates are increased.
We
should be increasing the ability for everyone to own the basic
service,
not reducing it. There are others with means that choose not to use
the
internet. Why should their flat rate go up because of others heavy
usage
of the basic local service? The simple answer is that it shouldn't.
b. Charge by the unit so that those that use the service more pay more.
It also does not seem fair to charge by the unit for data
communications
while providing flat rate service for voice calls. I don't like
using
stereotypes but an obvious example comes to mind. What difference
is there if a teenager parks on the phone for 4 hours/day talking to
a friends
or I am on the internet for 4 hours/day. There is none. There are
behaviors
with unnecessary voice call use that tax the basic infrastructure as
heavily
as internet use. The resulting costs of extravagant voice usage
should
also not be distributed to those wanting only basic service. It took
the internet
usage to expose the inherently inefficient use of the local phone
system
encouraged by our current pricing structure.
c. Offer various pricing plans so that people can pay for the type of
usage
that they prefer. These plans can be bundled with the basic rate.
I think that the basic service should be for so many minutes a month
(what is
a reasonable necessity) and VERY CHEAP, more so than it is now. We
should
not distinguish between voice and data communications. And the goal
should be
to get telephone/data service to every household regardless of income.
That
is what I think we should regulate by government, nothing more.
After that, I think we should have pricing set by the telephone
companies to
maximize profit. As a consumer, if you want to play, you must pay.
It's up
to the telephone companies to come up with attractive plans and packages
that appeal to each type of user, and that encourage enough usage for
them
to maximize their profits. For example, my household has resisted
cellular
service for years due to the cost of monthly service. We finally
purchased
a plan this year sice the cost has been reduced to a level that is
reasonable
for our planned usage (for road emergencies only). Competitive pricing
in
combination with technological advances did this, NOT excessive
regulation.
If the phone companies are allowed to price and they don't do it fairly (to
satisfy
the masses), they will pay dearly. How? Demand. The internet is not going
away.
A lot of people love the medium. If we can't get it at the a reasonable
price, there
are enterprising companies with new technologies that will get it to us.
Telephone
lines aren't the only communications game in town anymore. There are cable
and
wireless transmission media; who knows what else in the works.? If the phone
companies can't compete, maybe that means they have the wrong medium to
distribute the service efficiently.
I say let them charge what they want and compete. If we don't like it, we
don't buy it or use it less. The eventual alternatives that arise will
undoubtedly
be better that what we now have.
The above is what I am going to send to the FCC.
Regards,
[email protected]
--------------------------------------
List-Post: [email protected]
Date: 1/8/98 6:08 PM
To: Tony Fredriksson
From: Keith Goshia
"Your local telephone company has filed a proposal with the FCC to impose
per
>minute charges for your Internet service. They contend that your usage
has or
>will hinder the operation of the telephone network. It is my belief that
>Internet usage will diminish if users were required to pay additional per
>minute charges. The FCC has created an e-mail box for your comments.
>Responses must be received by February 13, 1998. Send your comments to
>[email protected] and tell them what you think. Every phone company is in on this
>one and they are trying to sneak it in just under the wire for litigation.
>Let everyone you know hear this one. Get the e-mail address to everyone you
>can think of.."
>
>E-mail address again is [email protected]
>This litigation will certainly affect the number of hours I spend on the
>Internet and it will be truly detrimental to a number of people who may be on
>fixed incomes....I have already voiced my opinion to the FCC and by sending
>this to you..I hope you can reach many Internet users and spread the
>word..Perhaps if enough people respond ...it won't happen....I also think we
>should contact all major news services and let them hear our voices....Please
>help spread the word and send your comments off today...
>
>If you need any ideas for your comments, I include my own below.
>
>For years the RBOCs have been milking the public through outrageous and non-
>cost-based "access charges" for long distance, tone dialing, inside wiring
>"insurance" scams etc., offering essentially no value in exchange. Now they
>want to milk us further by charging extra for wireline dialup modem use.
This
>is another example of how the phone companies expect a return on no
>investment. Instead of whining to the FCC for more income, they should be
>going out and GETTING income - from ISDN, ADSL, cable partnerships etc.,
where
>they WOULD be adding value to the customer's service.
>
>Adding charges to Telco dialup access would have a severe damping effect on
>the growth of the most important advance in the history of communications
>since the invention of the telephone.
>
>The Telcos have been very vague about the use of these new funds. If they
use
>them for network "voice circuit bypass" improvements to handle traffic from
>dial-up facilities, they will only be discouraging migration to higher-speed
>access modalities. If they use the funds to invest in future, high-speed
>access modalities, while their competitors are forced to go to the equity and
>debt markets to provide similar capabilities, they will have an unfair
>advantage over their future competitors. If the FCC grants revenue
>improvements to the incumbents for this type of service, it will be
>discriminating against Telco competitors and reversing its well-established,
>pro-competitive policies of the past decade. Telephone companies should be
>subject to the same laws of the market place as anyone else. Let them INVEST
>in exchange for income, instead of regarding it as some kind of divine right
>that network improvements should be financed a priori out of customer
revenue.
>
>In February 1997 I contacted U S WEST for installation of an ISDN phone line.
>I have yet to hear from them; last week I sold the house where the order was
>placed, and have still to hear from my alleged "service provider" with
respect
>to my order. If this is the kind of service we get, we should not be
expected
>to shell out extra money for the only alternative we are left with.
>
>In the past fifteen years the personal computer has seen improvements ranging
>from the hundreds to the thousands in processor power, memory, graphics
>definition, storage and so on. During the same decade the capability for one
>computer to talk to another through dial-up Telco facilities has improved
>about four-fold, and has now reached its limit. It is unconscionable that
the
>Telcos should expect some kind of revenue concession in exchange for
providing
>the worst and most enduring bottleneck in the history of modern technology,
>and for being so slow and uncertain in providing alternatives. Let them
>remove the bottleneck first before they are entitled to any concessions.
>
>
>Dr. Ray W. Nettleton
>Chief Technology Officer, Formus Communications Inc.
>The Galleria Office Towers
>720 South Colorado Boulevard, Suite 600 North
>Denver, Colorado 80246
>(303) 504 3240 voice
>(303) 809 4223 portable
>(303) 504 3201 fax
>[email protected]
===============================================================
Keith A. Goshia Phone: (303) 247-5025
Senior Regulatory Engineer Cell: (303) 507-0158
D-1021 Fax: (303) 247-5115
Qualcomm Inc. Pager: (800) 401-3175
5450 Western Ave. Lab: (303) 247-5107
Boulder CO, 80301 E-mail: [email protected]
===============================================================
What happens if you get scared half to death twice?
------------------ RFC822 Header Follows ------------------
Received: by mac.net.com with ADMIN;8 Jan 1998 18:07:57 -0800
Received: from ns1.net.com by unet.net.com (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4)
id SAA02708; Thu, 8 Jan 1998 18:01:45 -0800
Received: from ruebert.ieee.org (ruebert.ieee.org [199.172.136.3]) by
ns1.net.com (8.8.6/8.6.9) with ESMTP id SAA08513; Thu, 8 Jan 1998 18:06:06
-0800 (PST)
Received: (from daemon@localhost)
by ruebert.ieee.org (8.8.8/8.8.8)
id RAA25954 for emc-pstc-list; Thu, 8 Jan 1998 17:19:27 -0500 (EST)
Message-Id: <[email protected]>
X-Sender: [email protected]
X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0 (32)
X-Priority: 2 (High)
List-Post: [email protected]
Date: Thu, 08 Jan 1998 15:18:20 -0700
To: [email protected]
From: Keith Goshia <[email protected]>
Subject: per minute charges for telephone internet users
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Sender: [email protected]
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: Keith Goshia <[email protected]>
X-Resent-To: Multiple Recipients <[email protected]>
X-Listname: emc-pstc
X-Info: Help requests to [email protected]
X-Info: [Un]Subscribe requests to [email protected]
X-Moderator-Address: [email protected]
