Look Out For The Rising Costs Of ILEC Local Services [telecom]

[Bill Horne]

by Levine, Blaszak, Block & Boothby, LLP

Do enterprises still use POTS lines?  Well, the ILECs appear to be
asking the same question, because there is a disturbing trend taking
place with ILEC pricing.  For example, one well-known ILEC recently
raised its list rate for POTS services by a whopping 50%.

Listen to this 9 minute podcast as TC2 Directors Theresa Knutson, Julie
Gardner, and Joe Schmidt discuss why enterprises still use POTS lines
for services like elevator phones, explain why ILECs are imposing these
huge price increases, and offer insight on what you need to do.

https://www.mondaq.com/unitedstates/telecoms-mobile-cable-communications/1148782/look-out-for-the-rising-costs-of-ilec-local-services?email_access=on

--
I don't want to say that I'm old and worn out, but I'm never anywhere near the curb on trash day

[Michael Trew]

On 1/11/2022 16:24, Bill Horne wrote:
> by Levine, Blaszak, Block & Boothby, LLP
>
> Do enterprises still use POTS lines? Well, the ILECs appear to be
> asking the same question, because there is a disturbing trend taking
> place with ILEC pricing. For example, one well-known ILEC recently
> raised its list rate for POTS services by a whopping 50%.
>
> Listen to this 9 minute podcast as TC2 Directors Theresa Knutson, Julie
> Gardner, and Joe Schmidt discuss why enterprises still use POTS lines
> for services like elevator phones, explain why ILECs are imposing these
> huge price increases, and offer insight on what you need to do.
>
> https://www.mondaq.com/unitedstates/telecoms-mobile-cable-communications/1148782/look-out-for-the-rising-costs-of-ilec-local-services?email_access=on

I've been keeping an eye on my POTS bill, and it just shot up almost
$3/mo, again. It seems to go up a dollar or two per month, every year
or two. I pay well over $10/mo more now, then I did in just 7 years
ago. Flat rate line, local unlimited calling, no features; $46/month
now. It seems that they are trying to price people out of owning a POTS
line. I'm not sure what my limit is, but we're encroaching it (I pay a
few dollars per month for third-party long distance service).

[Bill Horne]

Speaker as a former technician at New England Telephone & Telegraph,
and a former union organizer, and a current Verizon retiree, I'll
clarify the issue with this simple fact: the "loaded" cost for an hour
of a union employee's time is a three-figure number.

"Loaded" means that all factors are included: direct wages, training,
supervision, supervision of the supervisors, equipment, Workers
Compensation Insurance, retirement fund contributions, and health
care. It means that the stockholders have to part with somewhere
between 100 and 999 dollars for every hour a union technician is on
the job.

It's real money, and the stockholders are always looking to
disenfranchise unions for any reason they can: "retiring," i.e.,
refusing to spend the money to maintain the copper outside plant, is one
of the strategies being used to do that. No wires, no well-paid union
members to pay.

Most cellular employees are non-union, and the industry makes
extensive use of contractors, leased equipment, and low wage employees
to install, maintain, and remove physical plant. There have been union
drives at some cellular companies, with a few success stories, but
overall, it's a non-union industry. The profit figures reflect that.

In addition, the ilecs - whom are almost all in the cellular business
through various subsidiaries - want to force traffic back into the
pay-by-the-minute model that made their vast fortunes in the last
century. Although nervous lawmakers forced "Ma Bell" and its
subsidiaries to offer fixed-price plans to private citizens, almost
all business use has always been measured.

Cellular service has always been agressively targeted at young,
impressionable customers who were not (and, sad to say, are still not)
trained to consider the low-term costs of "included with offer"
cellphones, or per-minute cellular billing, or lowered voice
quality. They're being led like lambs to a slaughter, and our
government's civil servants seem to be serving only themselves when it
comes to getting any real protection for ordinary folks whom are
paying through the nose.

Bill

--
Bill Horne
(Remove QRM from my email address to write to me directly)

[Bill Horne]

On Wed, Feb 23, 2022 at 11:37:46PM -0000, Garrett Wollman wrote:
> In article <20220221223...@telecom.csail.mit.edu>,

> Bill Horne <malQRMass...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Cellular service has always been agressively targeted at young,
>> impressionable customers who were not (and, sad to say, are still
>> not) trained to consider the low-term costs of "included with offer"
>> cellphones, or per-minute cellular billing, or lowered voice
>> quality.
>

> Why should they care? They *don't use* voice telephony.

Sure they do: especially when their mommy calls them up and screams at
them about the cell phone bill that daddy is screaming about to her.

There are *STILL* "influencers" roaming middle- and high-school
corridors, showing off the "best" "new" "great" and <insert
superlative here> instruments to gullible pre-pubescent female
customers whom are able to get their mommy's credit card and their
behinds to the cell phone store. There is *REAL* money at stake, and
the guy at the cell phone store wants it.

Pre-pubescent teenage females: that's who buys pop music and expensive
cellphones.

Bill

--
(Please remove QRM from my email address to write to me directly)