Do you have *any* idea how much of the country now has _usage-based_billing_ for *LOCAL* calls as well as for 'long-distance' calls?
Hint: in terms of 'number of lines', the figure is in the 70-80% range.
[[ remainder of argument based on false premise removed ]]The issue is the length of time, _PER_CALL_PLACED_, that the appropriate 'digit decoding' gear has to be attached to the customer circuit. The shorter that time-period, the fewer instances of such gear it takes to handle a given call volume, and the *lower* the 'cost' of handling each call becomes.
This applies whether the decoding gear is outboard hardware, or a 'polling' pure software routine.
FALSE TO FACT.
How long does it take, on average, to 'pulse dial' a 7 digit number? How long does it take, on average, to 'tone dial' a 7 digit number?
(the ratio of those numbers -- over 400%(!!) for manually-dialed calls -- shows how wasteful it is to use pulse dialing. include 'machine-dialed' calls, e.g. dial-out modems, fax machines, etc. and it is over _1000%_)
How long does it take, on average, to 'dial' a 7 digit number? How long does it take, on average, to 'dial' a 10 digit number? [use the same form of dialing -- tone *OR* pulse -- for both timings]
(the ratio of those numbers -- about 42%, regardless of the dialing method used -- shows how "wasteful" it is to use 10-digit dialing when it is not required. )
Thus, pulse-dial over tone dial is some 400+% more expensive in digit-decoder resource time requirement, while 10-digit dialing is only about about 42% more than 7-digit dialing. Thus, 10-digit vs 7-digit dialing is about _one-tenth_ the extra overhead of pulse vs tone.
FALSE TO FACT.
The primary motivation for 10-digit dialing was to provide "parity of service" between numbers in the 'pre-existing' areacode and the new one. For businesses, this 'parity' _is_ a *BIG*DEAL* -- it has a large impact on "retaining" customers.
The 'people who pay the bills', i.e. the cusomters of the phone company, raised a big stink about (in the case of overlay codes) people _within_ the same geographic area getting a 'new' number and having to dial differently to reach them at their 'old' number. Suppose a competitor opened a new office in the area, and got "their" number in the new areacode; just dialing the 'local' (7-digit) number in the same geograph area got you different companies, depending on which number you were calling from. *NOT*GOOD* from a business standpoint. Either you give the company all "their" numbers in the new area-code -- almost totally defeating the purpose of adding a new areacode; or you have to make everybody dial the same way to reach anybody/anything within the area.
The only alternative to an areacode overlay is an areacode "split" -- which only makes -half- the people change their dialing pattern. Why should the half (that stayed in the old AC) get better treatment than those who were 'forced' into the new one? Plus the fact that the -next- time you split, you similarly inconvenience half the people in the (original) half that is currently being split.
"Assume" 1 call in 10 is mis-dialed -- reality is more like 1:200-1:500, or less, but assume 1:10 for the sake of argument.
That boosts the penalty for 10-digit vs 7-digit dialing (within the same method) from 42% to just over 46%, vs. the 400+% penalty for pulse dialing over tone.
Wow, the 'pulse penalty' is greater than the '10-digit penalty' by only a factor of 9:1 instead of 10:1.
Factor in the share of calls that are placed by various kinds of 'auto-dial' equipment (which use short tones, and minimal inter-digit spacing) -- things like modems, fax machine, push-button speed-dialers, etc. -- and the advantage ("on average") of DTMF over pulse dialing is up in the 7-800% range. (Auto- mation can speed up DTMF dialing more than it is possible to speed up pulse dialing.