---------------------------------------------------------------------- Message-ID: <9ea18845-30ca-4205-a529-574f297f5b64@googlegroups.com> Date: 21 Sep 2018 13:34:12 -0700 From: HAncock4 <withheld@invalid.telecom-digest.org> Subject: Re: Universal Service Fund On Friday, September 21, 2018 at 9:52:47 AM UTC-4, John Levine wrote: > In article <20babcbc-0c7d-4709-bfe3-0e7dce85f941@googlegroups.com> Hancock4 wrote: >> One of the objectives of the Bell breakup was to eliminate that >> cross-subsidy so that business and LD rates would go down and big >> businesses would save money (which is what happened). Local >> customers promptly saw rate increases and a new universal service >> charge, so they had no net gain from Divestiture. > > I agree that the USF is totally screwed up these days, but I would > disagree that local customers had no net gain. If you make any long > distance calls at all, the rates have dropped to the point where they > hardly matter. 3 cpm for anywhere in the country is typical. The elimination of cross-subsidy allowed some decrease in long distance call rates, but that is not the only factor. In the days after Divestiture, long distance rates fell, but the biggest cuts were for the long haul calls. Short haul calls didn't fall, or even increased. Note that in that time consumers were hammered by ridiculous charges (e.g. $25 per call) for "alternative operator services". In more recent years, long distance rates have become too cheap to meter because of technological improvements--a situation that has been ongoing for decades. Long distance rates were falling since the 1930s, this isn't anything new. The same factors that allow a powerful personal computer to sell for $250 today when it once cost thousands allowed long distance calls to be cheap. Further, many telephone plans--both landline and cellular--cost more because long distance costs are factored into them. ------------------------------ Message-ID: <BYAPR13MB2232E26C6C4134241201709191120@BYAPR13MB2232.namprd13.prod.outlook.com> Date: 21 Sep 2018 16:43:44 +0000 From: Naveen Albert <wirelessaction@outlook.com> Subject: Re: Universal Service Fund On 20 Sep 2018 22:46:29 -0400, John Levine <johnl@iecc.com> wrote > I agree that the USF is totally screwed up these days, but I would > disagree that local customers had no net gain. If you make any long > distance calls at all, the rates have dropped to the point where they > hardly matter. 3 cpm for anywhere in the country is typical. I agree with HAncock4. Divestiture was a lose-lose for everybody. The military and DoD were on AT&T's side, not the government's, for the record. Consumers lost from divestiture. A great book to read for this is "The Rape of Ma Bell". A little esoteric at times but it does a great job explaining why Divestiture was about the worst thing to happen in U.S. telecommunications history. The phone companies also lost from divestiture. The previous relationship between BOCs and AT&T was very synergistic. It was very efficient at restoring service quickly and operating efficiently. After the MFJ, it was pure disarray everywhere. A phone network is better when unified, not fractured into a million pieces as it was. And the whole LATA scheme is about the most bizarre and convoluted structure ever dreamt up. Back then, long-distance was charged by distance. Now, calling your neighbor can be considered long distance because of dumb LATA rules. What the heck?? Back then, consumers could just call the "phone company" for service, which was prompt, quick, and hassle-free. After Divestiture: which phone company? The local phone company? The interstate phone company? AT&T? MCI? Some other competitor? The only real winners were businesses, since businesses were the primary originator of long-distance calls so they saw their phone bills decrease significantly, whereas customers bills increased to reflect the true cost of the service they were receiving. And business lines used to be more expensive, I'm not sure if that's still the case either. I don't know where $0.03/min came from. The incumbent in my area does not offer any flat-rate long distance calling plan, and long-distance is $3.95 per month plus $0.15 per minute. A 40 minute call from Wisconsin to Minnesota is slightly over $6. An hour of talking is $9. I don't call that cheap. So the breakup was a lose-lose for everybody, except businesses, although I would say businesses still lost out on the quality of service they would have gotten with Bell. They enjoy cheaper rates though, so I wanted to qualify that. ***** Moderator's Note ***** A. Because it doesn't follow the natural, intuitive top-to-bottom tradition of writing during a written conversation or debate. Q. Why is top-posting bad? Bill Horne Moderator ------------------------------ Message-ID: <20180921162150.B78CB200525CFF@ary.qy> Date: 21 Sep 2018 12:21:50 -0400 From: "John Levine" <johnl@iecc.com> Subject: Re: How To Sell Your Old Iphone For The Most Money They missed my fave used phone site, Swappa at https://www.swappa.com, where I've bought and sold lots of phones. Their prices for iPhone 8 are at least as good as Glyde, the site they recommend. -- Regards, John Levine, johnl@iecc.com, Primary Perpetrator of "The Internet for Dummies", Please consider the environment before reading this e-mail. https://jl.ly ------------------------------ ********************************************* End of telecom Digest Sun, 23 Sep 2018