johnt
================================================================
Return-Path: <MWALTER@puc.state.id.us>
X-Nvlenv-01Date-Transferred: 22-Dec-1995 9:54:22 -0700; at NGM2.Idaho
X-Nvlenv-01Date-Posted: 22-Dec-1995 10:00:27 -0500; at PUC.Idaho
From: MWALTER@puc.state.id.us (Myrna Walters)
To: johnt@bluefish.fsr.com (John Teeter)
Subject: Re: GTE proposed rate/service changes in Moscow/Potlatch Exchan
Date: 22 Dec 95 10:00:22 MST
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Length: 2747
> Date: 21-Dec-1995 17:40:29 +0800
> From: johnt@fsr.com (John Teeter)
> To: ipuc@PUC.Idaho
> Subject: GTE proposed rate/service changes in Moscow/Potlatch Exchange
> Copies-to: johnt@bluefish.fsr.com, v2020@uidaho.edu
> Dear Sirs/Madam:
>
> I have received notification from GTE concerning a proposed change to our
> local telephone service. I find that the proposed service/rate changes
> will effectively increase the overall confusion within the marketplace
> (ie. too many choices) and will also tend to increase the overall cost
> of the preferred service which we use. Additionally, the proposed
> change will increase the cost of current Moscow/Pullman WA. service which
> is a primary aspect of the telephone utilization within the two communities.
>
> A full and thorough analysis of this proposed changed should be
> undertake with public input from those effected by this proposed
> change.
>
> I am currently a subscriber for a large number lines from GTE and find
> the current rate structure somewhat confusing (for example a business
> line in Potlatch is $23/line, while the same service in Moscow is
> $51/line). The imbalance between these two markets difficult to
> understand.
>
> While the proposed change does provide an equitable balance between
> the two areas, the proposed rate of $43/line seems improbably high,
> especially when one considers the same line in the US-West/Lewistion
> LATA is $33/line. Again, a confusing imbalance.
>
> I encourage the extension of local calling area, but it would seem that
> doing this based upon a cost structure which will encourage non-participation
> in the service (i.e. special pricing at 2x the non-service rate) is
> inappropriate. Similarly, the addition of basic metered service at rates
> comparable to discounted long distance rates would seem inappropriate.
>
> A goal of such a proposed service/rate change should be to ease of
> understanding and decision making within the serviced population.
> Additionally, while insuring that the capital/profit needs of GTE are
> satisfied, it would not be appropriate to do so at levels which generally
> would exceed those which have historically been supported via tariffs
> established by the IPUC.
>
> We hope that your analysis of this situation provides for a satisfactory
> resolution, without loss of currently established service, to all parties
> involved.
>
> John A. Teeter
>
Mr. Teeter:
We have received your comments regarding GTE's Local Calling Plan
proposal - IPUC Case No. GTE-T-95-3.
Your comments will be circulated to the Commissioners for their
information and will be made a part of that case file.
Myrna Walters,
Commission Secretary