TELECOM Digest OnLine - Sorted: Re: Payphone Surcharges (was Unanswered Cellphones)

Re: Payphone Surcharges (was Unanswered Cellphones)

John Levine (johnl@iecc.com)
6 Jan 2006 05:16:18 -0000

<hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com> wrote:

> snarl

>> Seth Breidbart wrote:
>> snarl back, etc.

Lisa has one reasonable point -- ever since the Bell breakup, the cost
of making a payphone call by dialing 0+number and then entering your
LEC calling card number has been set by the operator of the payphone,
and is utterly unpredictable and more often than not completely
absurd. I agree that stinks, but my solution wouldn't be to regulate
it but rather to get rid of it since it's now a quaint historical
artifact from the monopoly era.

The vast majority of calling cards, whether from big companies like
AT&T and Sprint or small companies that sell cards at newsstands, use
an 800 number and the price you pay is set by the calling card company
and is the same regardless of whose pay phone you use.

Seth: she's right to the extent that the price for 0+ calls is a ripoff.

Lisa: get with the program and use an 800 number to make your calling
card calls like everyone else does.

R's,

John

Post Followup Article Use your browser's quoting feature to quote article into reply
Go to Next message: heyarnoldusa@yahoo.com: "Re: Slammed for 25 Grand"
Go to Previous message: Mark Crispin: "Re: Cost of POTS w/o Long Distance"
TELECOM Digest: Home Page