herrickd@uunet.uu.net (CONTR HERRICK, DAN) (03/05/91)
Pat reported IBT access for Teleport Communications and Metropolitan
Fiber Systems to provide some alternative LEC services, reselling IBT
services and asked where else alternative service is actually being
implemented.
This data comes from a front page article, headed "Shakeout Looms
Over Bypass Mart by Bob Brown, Senior Editor in the 25 February 1991
issue of {Network World}, a weekly tabloid. (Dallas dateline)
The dateline was for the annual meeting of the Association for Local
Telecommunications Services, a trade group of alternative access
carriers.
The mood at the meeting was "incredibly optimistic" according to John
Shapleigh, ALTS' new president.
Philadelphia Fiber Optic went out of business, losing a competitive
war.
Dallas based DFW MetroLink, Inc filed for Chapter 7 liquidation, but
is continuing to sign up new customers while looking for a buyer.
Some others, including Institutional Communications Co, and Eastern
Telelogic are looking for money.
Teleport Communications Group, the industry's only profitable player,
is being offered for sale by owner Merrill Lynch & Company, Inc.
Metropolitan Fiber Systems, Inc is not for sale, but has suitors.
These are the two Pat mentioned in the IBT story.
Foreign long haul carriers Cable & Wireless PLC, British
Telecommunications PLC, France Telecom, and Kokusai Denshin Denwa, Ltd
are in the bidding for Teleport. (And others.)
Metropolitan Fiber Systems is operating networks in 11 cities.
Market revenues (all alternate companies) $60 million in 1989 and $90
million in 1990.
Market share in any city tends to be less than 2% of the business
business.
The article has a chart, credited to Susan J Champeny of The Yankee
Group, Boston, that shows investment in local fiber network by the
alternate access carriers and by the local exchange carriers:
1988 1989 1990 1991 1992
alternate $250 $350 $400 $450 $500
LEC 0 40 100 250 300
Robert Atkinson, senior vice-president of regulatory and external
affairs at Teleport, says chances are good that carrier accessibility
will get better for the alternates now that Teleport has won a bitter
struggle with Nynex Corp. to collocate in New York Telephone Company
central offices.
Atkinson's comments suggested that the IBT agreement followed from and
was related to the successful conclusion in NY. He says that the
Bells are givin in to the alternative access carriers on
interconnection in hopes of winning concessions from public service
commissions. New York Telephone won more pricing flexibility as it
conceded central office access.
So, my suggestions here that we ought to compete are a few years
behind the market. My report above names every company in the
alternate carrier market mentioned in the Network World article.
dan herrick herrickd@iccgcc.decnet.ab.comcyberoid@milton.u.washington.edu (Robert Jacobson) (03/08/91)
Fans of competitive local telephone service should beware the example of British Telecom, which used the existence of the incipient but never seriously competitive Mercury Telecom as the rationale for its total deregulation (or nearly so). Mercury, with all its hype and smoke and mirrors, provided just the excuse BT needed. Now Britain has a monopoly with power to set its own rates, offer service at its discretion, and generally set telecom policy for the entire nation. When pressed on its often criticized performance, BT answers, "For the disgruntled, there's always Mercury. (Hah-hah.)" Bob Jacobson
johns@scroff.uk (John Slater) (03/12/91)
In article <telecom11.185.4@eecs.nwu.edu>, cyberoid@milton.u. washington.edu (Robert Jacobson) writes: |> Fans of competitive local telephone service should beware the example |> of British Telecom, which used the existence of the incipient but |> never seriously competitive Mercury Telecom as the rationale for its |> total deregulation (or nearly so). Mercury, with all its hype and |> smoke and mirrors, provided just the excuse BT needed. Now Britain |> has a monopoly with power to set its own rates, offer service at its |> discretion, and generally set telecom policy for the entire nation. |> When pressed on its often criticized performance, BT answers, "For the |> disgruntled, there's always Mercury. (Hah-hah.)" Huh? Mercury competes with BT on long distance, not local service. That's certainly the case for private users. Large businesses can rent dialtone from Mercury, but they do this largely to save money on long distance (they get even better discounts than private users via 131, I believe). And what's this about "total deregulation"? My posting last week talked about the imminent licensing of other LD carriers and dialtone rental from cable TV companies, but it's all in the future. Mercury _has_ been seriously competitive : it's forced BT to introduce a whole new charge band for domestic calls (B1), which "coincidentally" applies to all of Mercury's cheapest routes. John Slater Sun Microsystems UK, Gatwick Office