TELECOM Digest OnLine - Sorted: Re: AT&T Residential Rate Increases?

Re: AT&T Residential Rate Increases?

T (nospam.kd1s@cox.nospam.net)
Wed, 27 Dec 2006 08:36:54 -0500

In article <telecom25.425.10@telecom-digest.org>, dont@bother.com
says:

> AES <siegman@stanford.edu> wrote:

>> What's going on here? Response to more and more people shifting to
>> VOIP is to _raise_ their POTS rates? (especially on automated
>> features)

>> What's the agenda behind this?

> Business 101. In a declining market, you raise prices to preserve
> profitability (think cigarettes).

> It's not just VOIP -- that's more a future threat. It started with big
> minute cell phone plans. While the rate of decline has lessened, all
> the wireline carriers are continuing to lose physical lines.

But in both AT&T and Verizon's cases they also have significant cellular
holdings. I guess they can't comingle the funds between the operating
units.

In article <telecom25.425.9@telecom-digest.org>, Sam@coldmail.com
says:

> AES wrote:

>> Just got several mailings re our AT&T residential service in Palo
>> Alto/Stanford CA area announcing *big* rate increases on POTS service:
>> 5% to 10% increases on package plans, up to 30% each on a long list of
>> individual features (Caller ID, Call Waiting, etc. etc).

>> What's going on here? Response to more and more people shifting to
>> VOIP is to _raise_ their POTS rates? (especially on automated
>> features)

>> What's the agenda behind this?

> Those folks run on the same mentality as the Post Office (aka United
> States Postal "Service"). The Postal Service has seen its first class
> mail revenues fail significantly. So, they raise rates to force
> revenues to remain relatively stable.

> Caller ID, for example, is terribly overpriced by the wireline
> carriers. It is part of standard service with wireless and VOIP
> service providers.

> In the case of California those funny folks called the PUC have hated
> Caller ID since its inception (remember, they were the nut cases that
> sued the FCC to stop the implementation of Caller ID). So, if Pacific
> Telephone, a unit of AT&T, nay Pacific Bell, nay SBC, nay AT&T wanted
> to charge $40 a month for Caller ID, the PUC would approve it. It is
> like a cigerette tax to those folks.

The only issue is that caller-ID is mostly useless these days because
there are so many ways to obfuscate ones number. What I find more
amusing is that Bell knew how to do CLID back in 1972. Just took some
time to roll it out.

Post Followup Article Use your browser's quoting feature to quote article into reply
Go to Next message: harold@hallikainen.com: "Re: AT&T Residential Rate Increases?"
Go to Previous message: Steve Stone: "Re: But They Never Say 'Can You Hear Me Now?'"
May be in reply to: AES: "AT&T Residential Rate Increases?"
Next in thread: harold@hallikainen.com: "Re: AT&T Residential Rate Increases?"
TELECOM Digest: Home Page