Re: Using local MTA re: tlug: Naive VM question

["Stephen J. Turnbull" <turnbull@example.com>]

>>>>> "jb" == Jonathan Byrne <jpmag@example.com> writes:

    jb> NTT has more greed and more power.

Hey, if you're going to bash Japan, at least know what you're talking
about.  NTT has nowhere near the pull or greed that AT&T used to have.

    jb> There's no real reason that NTT can't offer unlimited local
    jb> area dialing at a flat rate.  They just won't.

E-c-o-n-o-m-i-c-s.  Fairness to those who don't stay online 16 hours a
day.  They shouldn't offer a flat rate for voice-only service: see my
other post.  People with leased multipurpose lines can pay a flat
rate, but it will be much higher.

    jb> In San Diego, I paid $7.00 per month for unlimited dialing in
    jb> my local calling area, which was roughly a 15 - 20 km radius

My mother (upstate New York) is up to $30/month for the same service,
and that's that low only because her baseline average usage does not
include her period of using AOL.  In metro areas it can be very very
low because of network economies.  In suburban areas it's
substantially higher, and in rural areas it's looking to get
astronomical until the wireless revolution really kicks in.

    jb> around my house.  Calls outside of that radius but in the San
    jb> Diego area code (all of San Diego county, an area roughly 160
    jb> km x 160 km) would vary from 10 to 20 cents per minute,
    jb> depending on the distance.  Because of competition between
    jb> long distance companies, most domestic long distance calls
    jb> were actually cheaper than a local long distance call in San
    jb> Diego county).

And maybe they should be.  The cost of a call is more in the switching
than in the distance, especially with microwave technology, but also
with fiber.  Utilization rates are likely to be higher for LD
facilities.  I don't know the real numbers, but it's arguable in
theory.  Competition is probably most of the driving factor.  But
local networks are inherently very expensive, in part because they
must be much more reliable.

    jb> Here, of course, people pay more each month just to have a
    jb> phone line, even if they never call anyone.  Then they pay
    jb> extra for any calls they make.  And they have to buy the phone
    jb> line right from NTT.  That's the biggest rip-off of all.  In
    jb> the U.S., that's free.  You pay about $50 to have it

It is not and never was free.  However, the US capital market is much
more efficient, and US regulators consider the comfort of consumers a
priority, whereas Japanese regulators are much more concerned with the
well being of employees.  So in Japan the users pony up the capital up
front, while in the US they're paid back over time in the basic rate.

The US also built its infrastructure over a much longer period of time
than Japan has done, with a much broader base of corporate customers.
The US regulatory structure made it possible to screw corporations to
buffer residential customers.

In Japan, by contrast, only the internationalized companies made much
use of phones (compared to the US); instead they sent salarymen to
face-to-face meetings.  You don't think Tokyo is the monster (and will
stay a monster) that it is because people like breathing polluted air
and having too little space to have a wife, let alone kids?  The
access to cultural events and so on is part of it, but the cultural
need to literally press the flesh of your suppliers, clients,
regulators, and politicians makes it very expensive to do business
outside of Tokyo.  So phones aren't needed as much as a tool of
everyday business.

Screwing the corporations for the capital expenses would only have
increased the tendency to avoid the phone.

    jb> connected, but there's no $500 bribe to the phone company

That's actually not more than twice the historical average cost of
connecting a US customer, including stringing lines, to the local net,
if I remember correctly.

    jb> (which is what NTT's "subscription right" really is) to make
    jb> them let you have a phone line.

    jb> And the U.S. phone companies are making money.  Lots of it.

Well, yes, maybe.  I know the US LD companies are not in such good
shape, partly from taking losses trying to break into the more
profitable local market.  But we'll see how long the local companies
keep making money.

    jb> If they can, NTT could as well.  But until someone makes them,
    jb> it's not likely they will.  The only thing less likely is
    jb> anyone making them do it.  :-(

Oh, I don't know about that; the rapid penetration of cellular and PHS
is already putting pressure on the local phone service, and NTT is
getting slowly squeezed by the "new TT companies" and callback in the
long distance market.  The drop in prices is spectacular.