Re: Payphone Surcharges (was: Unanswered Cellphones)

In article <telecom24.583.7@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Anthony Bellanga
<no-spam@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> The surcharge rates are *NOT* regulated!

Which surcharges?

> The FCC/etc. have "allowed" the payphone owners to charge these
> surcharges, LONG AFTER the private payphone owners first became
> involved in the payphone game.

For 800 number, the FCC set the charge the (last I checked) just under
$0.30. That's paid by the recipient (who may be a long distance
carrier, or any sort of company with a toll-free inbound number).

> But the rates themselves, while "recommended" by the FCC/etc., are
> NOT regulated! The amounts that the payphone owners charge back to
> the Long Distance carriers who then pass back to the card-holder is
> *PURE GRAVY* for both, since the Long Distance and Card companies
> are most likely adding even more profit for themselves.

So you think the payphone owner should allow those calls to tie up his
payphones for free?

Seth

[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Well Seth, in the olden, golden days of
the Bell System, there was a back office function called 'Separations
and Settlements' which divided up the money so both the sending and
the recieving telco and any telco in the transit path all got their
share of the money. And just as hotel switchboards get a commission
from telco on the amount of long distance revenue they collect on
telco's behalf, I think telco could have arranged to pay a commission
to the COCOT owner. PAT]

.