TELEPHONE BUREAU CALL CHARGES

Dominion, Volume 22, Issue 265, 5 August 1929, Page 12

TELEPHONE BUREAU CALL CHARGES

Sir,—The departmental reply to my letter' in last Luursuay a “Duiuuiiou is so weak that 1 would be glad it you would grant me epace to reply thereto. With regard tq the clerical work involved in accepting calls from subscribers’ telephones, surely the Department does not suggest that that work coste 4d- on a single five-minutes call between Lower Hutt and Wellington. ' The argument that the subscriber# do not have to pay for the call tn whereas persons using a public call office do has no merit, because the amount has to be paid ultimately, and it suits the Department’s convenience to collect the charges at the end of the month. Referring to the statement that calls from public call offices are limited to the areas of the particular exchange to which they are connected, while no limits are imposed on the range of communication open to telephone subscribers, it would appear to any right-thinking person that this is an argument in favour of making the calls from subscribers’ telephones cheaper than calls from public offices. Subscribers’ ’phones having a greater range of communication, are naturally greater revenue-producing agencies, whereas public call offices are restricted in regard to revenue producing. It may be pointed out that subscribers can certainly communicate with a great range of exchanges at a charge—the charge being graduated according to distance It seems to be inferred from the departmental reply that the Department is granting a great concession in allowing subscribers to connect with other exchanges, but the fact is that a great deal of revenue is derived therefrom. Another matter I might mention is that if a subscriber cannot get a through connection with a subscriber on another exchange owing to the person at the other end being away, the bureau charge is levied just the same, whereas persons making an unsuccessful call from a public call office do not have to pay anything. Is that the way to treat ones clients/ No doubt the Department will say it is an equitable arrangement on account of the “extra clerical work.” This argument of extra clerical work has been used on numerous occasions in connection with other matters, and is just about threadbaie‘notice that the stamp cancellation marks on letters at tower Hutt read: “The telephone is the new necessity, but it will have to remain the new necessity for a good many people so long as> the Department treats its own customers shabbily, and discriminates in favour of casual users of the public call offices. I am, etc., DISGUSTED. Lower Hutt, July 30.

[Replying to the abQve, the Department comments as follows: —The correspondent apparently fails to realise that calls from a subscriber’s telephone necessitate attention by a toll attendant, whose services must be available even when work is not offering. This involves expenditure on salaries, etc. In the case of public call offices (coin-in-the-slot), the operating work is performed by the applicant. It must •be borne in mind also that the expenditure involved in providing a public call office that will serve a considerable number of casual users is much less than would be incurred in providing individual service at the residence of each user. The Department is satisfied that what the correspondent regards as an unjust discrimination against exchange subscribers is actually a fair adjustment of the charges in proportion to the costs involved,]