TELEPHONE CHARGES.

Otaki Mail, 8 October 1923, Page 3

TELEPHONE CHARGES.

Thei'e has been much discussion on the matter of telephone charges, and an exchange says:— “The telephone rental demands is sued will cause a general feeling ol dissatisfaction amongst business men. who will find their rental increased considerably. The local increase, from £S to £lO. is enough to cause a growl by itself, but the Department, showing a grasping nature, akin to the proverbial skinflint, goes further, and puts on extra charges for table telephones —5s per annum, and for retaining 1 the Second ear piece for already installed wall telephones—os per annum—and various other ridiculous little charges which 1 tend to raise lire ire of subscribers against such paltry pin-pricking devices to increase telephone rentals. Recently the Department sent out tentative pro . p.jiuls to increase charges for busines; t telephones to somewhere about £lo pet i annum. Naturally business men on jeeted, and competent men proved, evi , dcntly to the disgrunlbunent of the lie part muni that the proposed charges were excessive, and more than ctilctti ated to pay the annual costs of admin istrntion. The Department, forced by means of logical reasoning on life part . of the public they presumably were out I to exploit, reduced the annual fees to £l2, £lO and £S, according to the grade of exchange. Then to augment their ‘loss.’ tite Department devised these mean little ways of raising more money. Is there mure" cost in maintaining a table telephone than a trail ditto? It would be difficult In prove. Does the r.tr.i earpiece (which, by the way. is net ‘extra ’ at all. but part and parcel of the machine itself) cost anything to maintain? No; but :i charge of 5* is imposed, which must 'either be paid or the ‘extra’ carp’ere brought into the exchange by the subscriber. the Department ’s regulations prohibit auv subscriber in any way interfering with a telephone in liis residence or office, but here, to suit its own ends, it deliberately seeks to enus'e breaches of its regulations by ordering subscribers to remove the earpieces themselves or pay tin extra ss—inconsistent and absorb. If the Department requires more revenue to make ends meet and the telephone pay its way. let it be clearly and openly shown trom u business standpoint that th'e increased charge u> warranted. Business men would be the last to raise objection. To raise revenue by calling detachable parts of telephones ‘extras’ is merely childish and asking for trouble. Of course if the Department requires the earpieces for othei purposes, the tax on them can be understood as a means of securing them. Front what we observe, there will be abundance of these ‘extras’ available at une’e. 7 ' f HTOgwjgqgg jw'-MiiiewwwawßEgß