davidb@pacer.uucp (David Barts) (12/17/90)
The Moderator writes: > [Moderator's Note: I agree with your premises. So what next? The > industry will get a lot worse before it gets better, believe me. PAT] Hmmm. How about: Slimy AOS's getting even slimier. Now they're in on the slamming game too. Charges even more inflated than before. "Yes, Mr. Barts, we realize that you deny calling our 800 number and requesting our service. However our records show that we followed FCC-approved telemarketing practices and that you did." "But 29.73 for a five minute call from Seattle to Pasadena?!? I could call *JAPAN* for five minutes on ATT and pay less than that!!" "Sorry, our records show you requested our service. The moment you picked up your phone and dialled `1` you entered into a voluntary contract for long distance service with us. Now send us the check for last month's charges of $256.34 if you wish to protect your credit rating. >click<" An AOS calling itself the "Emcee Eye Service Corp." They specialize in slamming MCI customers. Naturally, their 1-700-555-4141 recording sounds just like MCI's (surprise, surprise, isn't it a shame that MCI subscribers have to wait for sticker shock in the phone bill before they can tell they've been slammed). The local telco selling an "insert caller ID of your choice" service. So I get a harassing call at 3am, and do a return*call and get connected to 1-900-TOO-MUCH. Ding, $75.00 please. I agree that the old Bell System needed some reforming. However IMHO the MFJ was blindfolded surgery with a chainsaw when a simple appendectomy was all the patient needed. Silly me, I keep forgetting. The purpose of the US phone system is no longer to provide the best service to the greatest number of people, its goal is now to maximize profits, and no more. Guess I need to reform these outdated, deviant opinions of mine ;-). David Barts Pacer Corporation, Bothell, WA davidb@pacer.uucp ...!uunet!pilchuck!pacer!davidb [Moderator's Note: Like yourself, I quite agree the MFJ (whatever that means around here :) wink! wink! ) was a bit of an overkill. Throwing the baby out with the bathwater, one might say. The judge would have been more ethical had he allowed AT&T to stay intact while at the same time authorizing unlimited competition *in all forms of phone service* -- local, long distance and equipment sales -- and ordering AT&T/Bell to interconnect with all competitors fairly. An impartial panel would ajudicate disputes regards technical standards or other reasons AT&T might resist interconnection. It was completely unfair of the judge to rip off AT&T of a century's worth of experience and investment in telephony. He should have said to the others, "Yes, you may compete, and AT&T is forbidden to refuse interconnection at any level. Spend a hundred years in the business as they have done and see if you can do as well or better." *That* would have been the fair way. PAT]
john@bovine.ati.com (John Higdon) (12/20/90)
On Dec 18 at 1:52, TELECOM Moderator writes: > [Moderator's Note: Like yourself, I quite agree the MFJ (whatever that > means around here :) wink! wink! ) was a bit of an overkill. Throwing > the baby out with the bathwater, one might say. The judge would have > been more ethical had he allowed AT&T to stay intact while at the same > time authorizing unlimited competition *in all forms of phone service* > -- local, long distance and equipment sales -- and ordering AT&T/Bell > to interconnect with all competitors fairly. This is where your argument falls apart, Pat. I challenge you to name one single problem with the MFJ that isn't a result of improper or inadequate regulation. You say that AT&T should have been left intact and that some regulatory board would "make" them treat competitors fairly? Would it also "make" it release all specifications, practices, procedures, and technical standards so that the competition (and we ordinary folk) could make best use of the telephone network? I give you a living, contrary example. Pac*Bell. In every area that Pac*Bell has been allowed to compete with others, the company has pulled out every sleazy stop and managed to skirt the regulators. In cellular, Centrex marketing, equipment vending, you-name-it, I could give you a list of borderline tactics that unfairly harm its competition. IMHO, Pacific Telesis should be absolutely and positively prevented from participating in any business activity other than providing local exchange service. Owning that network gives it a supreme advantage in almost any technical arena you can name. > An impartial panel would > ajudicate disputes regards technical standards or other reasons AT&T > might resist interconnection. Oh, you mean something like the CPUC? We in CA can daily see how it would be if Mother still owned the local exchange system. Pacific Telesis has become the new AT&T, and the CPUC seems to be completely powerless to do anything about it. The company sells Centrex by messing up the prospective victim's trunks on its PBX and then claiming that "Centrex is maintain in OUR office and never has these problems." They provide free landline calls to Cellular One (partially owned by PT), while denying them to GTE Mobilnet. PacTel intimates that if equipment comes from them, somehow the customer's exchange service will be a little more reliable. The list (of verifiable case histories) goes on. Instead of blaming the MFJ for all of these inconveniences, why not ask why the appropriate regulatory board isn't doing its job? AOS, COCOTs, 900 IP, all of these things fall under someone's jurisdiction. So seeing how these boards are falling down on the job, what makes you believe that your "impartial panel" would do any better? John Higdon | P. O. Box 7648 | +1 408 723 1395 john@bovine.ati.com | San Jose, CA 95150 | M o o !