From: utzoo!decvax!ucbvax!teletext Newsgroups: fa.teletext Title: LADT Article-I.D.: ucbvax.7717 Posted: Sun Jun 20 16:06:05 1982 Received: Tue Jun 22 01:44:30 1982 >From lauren@UCLA-Security Sun Jun 20 16:03:19 1982 Date: 20 June 1982 1536-PDT (Sunday) From: lauren (Lauren Weinstein) Subject: LADT In-reply-to: Your message of 20 June 1982 09:37-EDT To: SIRBU at MIT-MC If you reread my last message, you'll see that I wasn't really making a big deal about the "actual" costs of providing the service -- my concern is with the price of the service AS EVENTUALLY TARIFFED. Such services will almost certainly not be considered to be included within "basic" telephone service, and might well be catagorized as fully enhanced services. I have no reason to believe that such services would be priced cheaply. Even with basic telephone service, the new moves toward making telco charge what the service actually "costs" to provide are mainly resulting in UPWARD pressures on residential phone bills. If LADT is priced cheaply (fat chance!) it might not be so useful if associated with $40/month local phone service and outrageous data packet charges. The end result will almost certainly be a useful service for businesses and some high-value applications (like large burglar alarm systems -- the kind that use leased lines now), but I doubt that the "average" consumer (and "simple" videotext systems) will be helped much in a realistic sense. This discussion has now moved beyond the realm of TELETEXT into specifics of telecommunications technology. I suggest we either continue it privately or on TELECOM. --Lauren-- P.S. In some metro areas, the percentage of new installs based on conventional (non-digital) carrier is very high and rising rapidly. --LW--