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--