Re: ISDN digest 65

[david.jensen@teldta.com (David Jensen)]

  Bill Frezza wrote:
       
  >Jamie,
       <snip>
  >I'm please to see that we've found ourselves on the opposite sides of yet
  >another issue.  If you didn't exist, I would have to invent you <g>.
       <snip>
  >COMPETITION IS THE SOLUTION, NOTE MORE REGULATION
       
  >Carping about proposed ISDN rate hikes has become all the rage.
       <snip>
  >So, how about charging a higher installation fee for remote users?  Nope.
  >Differential pricing violates a fundamental regulatory tenant under which
  >city dwellers are gouged to subsidize suburban and rural users.  Fixing
  >the "problem", therefore, requires a rate hike for all.
       
       So, value pricing is good according to regulators and CPT.
       
  >The heart of the CPT argument is that it is evil for phone companies to
  >set prices based on "value" (i.e., willingness to pay) rather than "cost."
  >CPT's solution?  Give an administrative law judge extraordinary powers to
  >set ISDN prices!
       
       Oops, my mistake. Value pricing is bad.
       
  >Give them subsidies from the Universal Service fund!
       
       Value pricing is good again.
       
       Or the alternative--
  >The whole Rube Goldberg regulatory structure has to go.  The more out of
  >line a Bell company's pricing policies are, the faster they will attract
  >hungry competitors.  We've waited 20 years for ISDN.  It's far better to
  >wait a little longer than have this issue used as sucker bait to keep the
  >regulators in business.
  
  Let's dump the universal service fraud, too. Do rural people subsidise rents in 
  cities because city rents are so much more expensive than rural rents?