Written Comments

re:

Price Cap Review

02 Oct 2001

Williams Lake, BC

Gentlemen,

Some portion of my phone bill currently goes to new line construction, albiet not directly.  I object to an increase in MY monthly charges to pay for SOMEONE ELSES phone.  In this case, that 'someone else' already enjoys a lower property tax assessment than I, prefers to live in a more remote area, and generely doesn't want the increased level of services included with higher taxed areas.  This probably doesn't include a phone, which they would like to have (especially if someone else is paying). These people already have access to phone service via satalite, although it is pricey.

If Telus, or other phone service providers, and their shareholders wish to increase their subscriber base, and cash flow, and extend service to remote locations, then wouldn't it follow that those paying for this increase also enjoy the fruits of this expansion?  It would also follow that those providing the money necessary would become mini-shareholders.

If the Government is the body wishing to extend the service to remote areas, then the Government (Federal/Provincial)should be making the funds available - possibly through increased property taxation to the affected areas ie: USER PAYS.  The lines could also be used for rural electricification.

If it is the rural users that want the increased service, then it should deffinately be USER PAYS.

Sincerely

John S Tucker

RR 1 1839 Dog Cr Rd

Williams Lake, BC

V2G 2P1

250 392 2730