home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- Newsgroups: alt.cyberpunk
- Path: sparky!uunet!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!cs.utexas.edu!torn!nott!bnrgate!bcars267!bnr.ca!grey
- From: grey@bnr.ca (Grey)
- Subject: Re: CallerID and CyberSex
- Message-ID: <1992Dec22.204302.17432@bnr.ca>
- Sender: news@bnr.ca (usenet)
- Nntp-Posting-Host: bmerh9ad
- Reply-To: grey@bnr.ca (Grey)
- Organization: Bell-Northern Research Ltd.
- References: <85666@ut-emx.uucp>
- Date: Tue, 22 Dec 1992 20:43:02 GMT
- Lines: 30
-
- kkwast@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (Kevin A. Kwast) writes:
-
- > When Southwestern Bell begins full Caller ID service (which
- > isn't going to cost SWB any addt'l money) and rationalize charging
- ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
- ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
- > customers $10 a month to take advantage of that service.
-
- Woah! What are you talking about!? Nobody's GIVING that s/w to them.
- They may have purchased it as part of an upgrade of several calling
- features, and they may not have utilized/sold use of the feature yet,
- but they *certainly* paid for it.
-
- And the feature is not free to operate, either. The overhead in
- messaging to send this extra caller info around is substantial. The
- extra messaging reduces bandwidth for other messaging, and ultimately
- costs revenue as setup for other calls are delayed.
-
- Do you mean the telcos plan to make money on the feature? No kidding,
- just like any other feature (including basic telephone service) they
- offer. Selling the feature is not the cash-cow you seem to think.
-
- Grey
-
- --
- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
- grey@bnr.ca (Bell-Northern Research) I think I know enough of hate
- greymouser To say that for destruction ice
- my own opinions, not those of my employer Is also great, and would suffice
- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-