sunil@ut-ngp.UUCP (Sunil Trivedi) (04/13/85)
As most of you know, Equal Access is just around the corner
(at least that's what my local Bell company [Southwestern
Bell] has been saying for some time). But many may not be
familiar with the process that these Bell companies are about
to take regarding those who do not choose a particular long
distance company. Previously it was assumed that at the time
Equal Access was to be offered in an area, the residents would
have six months to decide which would be their main long dis-
tance carrier. Those who chose not to choose were to remain
with their previous carrier (AT&T). The other long distance
companies got Northwestern Bell to allocate some of the undecided
to their companies instead of defaulting to AT&T. Now South-
western Bell is following, with the other Bell companies waiting
in line. Agreeing that it may be considered unfair to "give" all
those "free" customers to AT&T, I feel that the consumer should
have the right not to have his service changed without his per-
mission. The telephone company and the long distance carriers have
been telling customers of the Equal Access and its implications.
I have had MCI, Sprint, Metrophone, and a local company called
SATELCO and of course AT&T and have found there to be a definite
quality difference. This difference could affect data transmission
and the usability of the line over long distance. Equal Access
may help the quality of the other companies' lines, but would it
be right if you were the "lucky" one to be assigned to one of the
lower quality carriers? What does the net feel about these politics?
Sunil Trivedi
sunil@ut-ngp. {ARPA,UUCP}jak@talcott.UUCP (Joe Konstan) (04/15/85)
> > Agreeing that it may be considered unfair to "give" all > those "free" customers to AT&T, I feel that the consumer should > have the right not to have his service changed without his per- > mission. The telephone company and the long distance carriers have > been telling customers of the Equal Access and its implications. > > Equal Access > may help the quality of the other companies' lines, but would it > be right if you were the "lucky" one to be assigned to one of the > lower quality carriers? What does the net feel about these politics? > > Sunil Trivedi > sunil@ut-ngp. {ARPA,UUCP} First of all, *EVERYBODY* has the right to choose AT&T or any other company as their primary access company. If that is what you want, mail in a postcard and you will get it. as to what should be done to those who do not express a preference, I think that their first long distance call should be channelled to an operator who would ask them to designate a company. If this is infeasible, then certainly the load should be spread among the several comanies randomly. If you really don't care, then it won't affect you. If you care, send in a postcard. What I want to know is what is happening to some of the other services that AT&T long distance provided. How will a collect call be billed if the caller and callee have different services? What about different types of calls (person to person, conference, etc.)? Does anybody know anything about this? Mithrandir jak@talcott.{UUCP,ARPA}
jer@peora.UUCP (J. Eric Roskos) (04/16/85)
> Equal Access may help the quality of the other companies' lines, but > would it be right if you were the "lucky" one to be assigned to one of > the lower quality carriers? What does the net feel about these > politics? If you want a "quality" carrier, you should speak up when given the chance and choose the carrier you want! You could as easily ask, "is it fair that AT&T gets all the people who default?" Actually, when Nashville (where I lived until 6 months ago) switched to Equal Access, they had the same policy you have described; but AT&T did an interesting marketing manoever that probably was responsible for keeping a lot of people with them. They sent out a card to all their present customers (i.e., everyone with a telephone) which said something like "This is your form for signing up for long distance service. Just send it in and you'll continue to have the quality service you've had all along." Since none of the competing companies did the same thing (a form had been mailed out earlier listing all the companies, including AT&T, and I suppose all the others assumed that was all the advertising they needed?), no doubt many people signed up for AT&T just because of the card. Somehow I don't think you have much to worry about. Personally, I would LIKE to have the CHOICE of another long distance service! Here there's only AT&T, a few local companies that resell AT&T WATS, and the promise that "next month" (for the past four months) MCI and SPRINT will be available. -- Full-Name: J. Eric Roskos UUCP: ..!{decvax,ucbvax,ihnp4}!vax135!petsd!peora!jer US Mail: MS 795; Perkin-Elmer SDC; 2486 Sand Lake Road, Orlando, FL 32809-7642 -- Full-Name: J. Eric Roskos UUCP: ..!{decvax,ucbvax,ihnp4}!vax135!petsd!peora!jer US Mail: MS 795; Perkin-Elmer SDC; 2486 Sand Lake Road, Orlando, FL 32809-7642
essachs@ihuxl.UUCP (Ed Sachs) (04/16/85)
> What I want to know is what is happening to some of the other services > that AT&T long distance provided. How will a collect call be billed if > the caller and callee have different services? What about different > types of calls (person to person, conference, etc.)? Does anybody know > anything about this? If you want these services, you'll have to use AT&T (either as your primary carrier or by dialing 1-0-ATT-0-(area code)-(local no.). As far as I can tell, no other long distance company is providing anything more that direct dial and credit card service. -- Ed Sachs AT&T Bell Laboratories Naperville, IL ihnp4!ihuxl!essachs
mjk@ttrdc.UUCP (Mike Kelly) (04/16/85)
If you want AT&T, choose AT&T. Mike Kelly
san@peora.UUCP (Sanjay Tikku) (04/16/85)
> > As most of you know, Equal Access is just around the corner In some areas it is already in place, example Orlando, Fla. If someone does not specify a particular carrier then AT&T is the default carrier. That's the way it works here. >I feel that the consumer should > have the right not to have his service changed without his per- > mission. The telephone company and the long distance carriers have > been telling customers of the Equal Access and its implications. Atleast in this place, you have to sign a paper if your service is changed and there you have to explicitly say that you want a "Dial-1" service with that company. Until then the local company, Southern Bell, doesn't make any change. I don't know how it works in other places but I haven't had any problems with equal access the way it is implemented here. Sanjay Tikku Perkin-Elmer,SDC,Orlando,Fla. ..!vax135!petsd!peora!san ..!allegra!ihnp4!pesnta!peora!san
jer@peora.UUCP (J. Eric Roskos) (04/16/85)
> Sanjay Tikku, just down the hall (san@peora.UUCP) writes: > I haven't had any problems with equal access the way it is implemented > here. Well, I have (see my previous message); so, after reading your comment, I called Sprint's business office. Lo and behold, Sprint doesn't even HAVE residential service in Orlando; so the story told to me by the service representative month after month has been fictional. So, I signed up with MicroTel. We'll see how that works. (Incidentally, in the process I found out the explanation for the discrepancy in our two postings; in my area they won't have equal access until July 15th.) There has been considerable discussion in fa.telecom on the subject of equal access; it appears that some companies have not found it as profitable as they had anticipated, since apparently there are higher charges for equal access compared to the old way (i.e., charges to the company offering the service for access to the network) in order to get the higher quality lines that are characteristic of AT&T, and this (according to the assertions made in fa.telecom) has led to a slowdown in the availability of service. Maybe that's part of it too. Personally, I hope it all works out. It would be a bad thing if, after going through all the disarray of divestiture, we ended up with nothing new at all in the long run. Then they'd have to regulate AT&T again, and it would be hard to get it all back together... -- Full-Name: J. Eric Roskos UUCP: ..!{decvax,ucbvax,ihnp4}!vax135!petsd!peora!jer US Mail: MS 795; Perkin-Elmer SDC; 2486 Sand Lake Road, Orlando, FL 32809-7642
woods@hao.UUCP (Greg Woods) (04/17/85)
> Agreeing that it may be considered unfair to "give" all > those "free" customers to AT&T, I feel that the consumer should > have the right not to have his service changed without his per- > mission. The telephone company and the long distance carriers have > been telling customers of the Equal Access and its implications. This about sums it up. Yes, it is unfair to give all the undecideds to AT&T by default. But, the consumer *does* have the right to not have his service changed! All they need do is specify that they wish to retain AT&T! Seems simple enough to me. Indeed, consumers *have* been informed of the coming changes, so there is no excuse for someone to whom which company they use matters not to so specify. They've had plenty of time. --Greg -- {ucbvax!hplabs | allegra!nbires | decvax!noao | harpo!seismo | ihnp4!noao} !hao!woods CSNET: woods@NCAR ARPA: woods%ncar@CSNET-RELAY "Please don't dominate the rap Jack, if you got nothing new to say..."
gadfly@ihu1m.UUCP (Gadfly) (04/18/85)
-- > > Agreeing that it may be considered unfair to "give" all > > those "free" customers to AT&T, I feel that the consumer should > > have the right not to have his service changed without his per- > > mission. The telephone company and the long distance carriers have > > been telling customers of the Equal Access and its implications. > > This about sums it up. Yes, it is unfair to give all the undecideds > to AT&T by default... Not necessarily. After all, AT&T served everybody before the breakup. Thus, AT&T sees it as unfair to have customers arbitrarily wrested away. Competing companies are free to woo customers with promises of better deals or better service, but why should they simply be handed a share of the market? Remember, AT&T wasn't handed the long-distance market-- they *made* it. Alas, the government has always had a hard time distinguishing fair from punitive. -- *** *** JE MAINTIENDRAI ***** ***** ****** ****** 18 Apr 85 [29 Germinal An CXCIII] ken perlow ***** ***** (312)979-7188 ** ** ** ** ..ihnp4!iwsl8!ken *** ***
san@peora.UUCP (Sanjay Tikku) (04/18/85)
> > Sanjay Tikku, just down the hall (san@peora.UUCP) writes: > > I haven't had any problems with equal access the way it is implemented > > here. > > Well, I have (see my previous message); so, after reading your comment, I > called Sprint's business office. Lo and behold, Sprint doesn't even > HAVE residential service in Orlando; so the story told to me by the > service representative month after month has been fictional. > Full-Name: J. Eric Roskos Let me resolve this apparent ambiguity in messages from different people in Orlando. In Orlando some areas have equal access and some don't. Since Eric's area does not have equal access, therefore I can understand that he has problems :-) (with equal access !). Sanjay Tikku Perkin-Elmer,SDC,Orlando ..!vax135!petsd!peora!san
brower@fortune.UUCP (Richard Brower) (04/22/85)
>> This about sums it up. Yes, it is unfair to give all the undecideds >> to AT&T by default... > >Not necessarily. After all, AT&T served everybody before the breakup. >Thus, AT&T sees it as unfair to have customers arbitrarily wrested away. >Competing companies are free to woo customers with promises of better >deals or better service, but why should they simply be handed a share >of the market? Remember, AT&T wasn't handed the long-distance market-- >they *made* it. Alas, the government has always had a hard time I should have the right to choose my service company, and I have, its AT&T. If I wanted my service changed to some other corporation, I should ask to have it changed, not have it changed by fiat. It isn't that I am undecided, it is that I don't want to be bothered with any more paperwork. -- Richard A. Brower Fortune Systems {ihnp4,ucbvax!amd,hpda,sri-unix,harpo}!fortune!brower
sunil@ut-ngp.UUCP (Sunil Trivedi) (04/28/85)
{From jak@talcott}
> As to what should be done to those
>who do not express a preference, I think that their first long distance
>call should be channelled to an operator who would ask them to designate
>a company. If this is infeasible, then certainly the load should be
>spread among the several comanies randomly. If you really don't care,
>then it won't affect you. If you care, send in a postcard.
I don't believe the point is whether I or you care, the point is
whether all groups will be able to comprehend and make a decision
that will be in their best interests. Consider the case of those
who are handicapped. Being assigned a telco different from their
regular one could cause problems as quality is not the same nor
is it expected to be the same after Equal access. Sure they could
always go back to AT&T, but for handicapped people this may not be
so simple.
{From woods@hao}
> This about sums it up. Yes, it is unfair to give all the undecideds
>to AT&T by default. But, the consumer *does* have the right to not
>have his service changed! All they need do is specify that they wish
>to retain AT&T! Seems simple enough to me. Indeed, consumers *have*
>been informed of the coming changes, so there is no excuse for someone
>to whom which company they use matters not to so specify. They've
>had plenty of time.
I find it hard to believe that everyone is expected to absorb new
currents instantly. Don't forget it took quite some time for
people to get used to Zip Code (as the USPS ads ought to tell you),
so why do you assume that everyone will quickly grasp the conseq-
uences of Equal Access. A device that was considered uncomplicated
and fairly trouble-free is now been made very complicated. Ignorance
should not be an excuse for all, but for good number of people, the
new "Communications Age" will be a nightmare. Also consider the
problems of those whose knowledge of English could be an obstacle;
even for those whose "mother tongue" is English.
{From san@peora}
> In some areas it is already in place, example Orlando, Fla.
> If someone does not specify a particular carrier then AT&T is the
> default carrier. That's the way it works here.
I would only hope that could have happened elsewhere. This sharing
of the undecided is going to help the small local "Long Distance"
company who just opened an office and leased some lines from AT&T
or MCI. I've had "service" with one such here. Their equipment
must have been purchased from a shady guy (as the line was extremely
poor). In fact their equipment had trouble noticing disconnections
so I was charged for 5-30 minutes of calling when I may have been
using their line for 30 seconds. Remember, when Equal Access comes
here, that company is going to get some customers by default. I'm
not saying that MCI, GTE/Sprint, or the others are like that one,
but that people ought to have the right to be lured away but not
kidnapped! Don't you think that companies that also have local
service (like GTE) would want to get their customers on their long
distance companies? Thus Equal Access will surely have victims!
Sunil Trivedi
sunil@ut-ngp.ARPA
...!ut-sally!ut-ngp!sunil