John Higdon <john@zygot.ati.com> (06/10/91)
Jim Redelfs <ivgate!Jim.Redelfs@uunet.uu.net> writes: > [Disclaimer: I am an 18+ year employee of US WEST Communications - JR] On my first reading of your article, I missed the disclaimer. But going through my mind was "this guy must work for some LEC". > US WEST Communications began offering "Business Voice Messaging" quite > a while ago, and it has been in the residential market for some > months. All is going well, it is being well accepted and subscribed > to. No doubt. Do you think that a few months is enough time for all of the independents to go away? It will be even more accepted and subscribed to when it is all there is. > I have not checked, so I cannot dispute your claim, but what's wrong > with charging less than your competition - even in this case? Because someone somewhere is making up the difference. You do not get something for nothing. If the telco charges the independent more to connect his system to the network than the telco charges to provide the complete service to an end user, who is subsidizing what? Hint: telco's funds come from its captive ratepayers. > Given that exagerated scenerio, you should be the first on your block, > possibly state, to appear during their rate hearings and request that > Pac*Bell charge MORE for their service! No, I will be the first on my block to ask that it be prevented from offering service on equipment that was capitalized on the backs of its regulated ratepayers--service that is unregulated and designed to compete in a supposedly level marketplace. Who capitalizes the equipment of an independent provider? > I hope not. In fact, this concern may cause me to write my FIRST > letter to my elected representatives - in SUPPORT of the bill. Be sure to mention that you work for a telco and have a vested interest in the matter. I am just a lowly ratepayer who must shell out each month for my telephone. Somehow it galls me to realize that I am paying for equipment that Pac*Bell can use to make money in a totally separate arena. > I think it is time for a little SUBSIDY of my local service! And how do you propose that? Especially in light of the fact that the money you pay for local service actually subsidizes that wonderful voicemail and other things like Centrex. > And if > the little guy can't hack the competition (REAL competition) that is > SLOWLY entering his domain after an absence of almost EIGHT years, so > be it. So your definition of REAL competition is that which comes from a company that has its up-front expenses paid for by a captive ratebase and doesn't have to answer to investors or stockholders (because the capital did not come from them in the first place)? > The Bell Operating Companies have a great potential - a LOT of which > was hogtied by Judge Harold Greene. This is right out of the promotional handbook and is complete and utter rot. Name one (just one) technical innovation that has come to us from an operating company. The Bell Operating Companies have had to get off their collectively stogy butts due to competition (the genuine kind, financed by pioneers and forward-thinking investors). This "great potential" is a myth that was spawned in the PR think-tanks of the RBOC holding companies. > I think the time is LONG OVERDUE > that they be allowed to ENDOW us lowly ratepayers with some of this > FABULOUS technology that, until now, had been either in development, > legally KEPT from us, or available or AFFORDABLE only to business > customers! Like what? All the fabulous technology that I am aware of has come about from outside vendors. There is nothing magic about a telephone company. It is a business. It is a utility. It is a monopoly. It has people doing their jobs. It is not magic. There is no reason that an RBOC holding company manufacturing equipment would be more likely to endow the lowly ratepayer with technology than any other manufacturer. But there sure is a greater chance (and probability) of questionable dealings. > I am not advocating, and would certainly resist, a return to the good, > old days when the phone company was the only show in town. (Remember > when they OWNED the wire and jacks in your home, as well as everything > that was plugged into the system?) Well, if they start making those jacks again (as you advocate), then at the least we will get some kind of line about how the phone service in your home cannot be guaranteed if you use Brand X jacks. Be sure to buy genuine Pac*Bell jacks. Problem with your phone? No wonder; it isn't Genuine Pac*Bell. > The BOCs have concentrated their efforts since deregulation on those > areas where they were legally allowed (with the odd exception > [blush]), and the time has come to see what they can do in their other > areas of expertise. Balderdash! They have been actively fighting for a return to those thrilling days of yesteryear. Much of YOUR money has been spent lobbying and promoting to get into equipment, information providing, voicemail, teleconferencing, video production, cable TV, cellular, and just about every other lucrative communications-related enterprize. I realize you work for a telco, but please do not check your brain at the door when you go to work. John Higdon | P. O. Box 7648 | +1 408 723 1395 john@zygot.ati.com | San Jose, CA 95150 | M o o ! [Moderator's Note: There are many, many replies on this topic waiting in the queue, but regretfully most of them say nothing new, and with space at a premium, I have to pass on using them. Thanks to all who responded. PAT]