leichter@lrw.com (Jerry Leichter) (10/14/90)
In a recent issue of TELECOM Digest, John Higdon wonders why some states have banned COCOTs, despite Federal regulations. Here's a guess: Connecticut, at least, is served by SNET, which was never owned outright by AT&T and was not part of the Greene breakup. Is the Federal regulation allowing for COCOTs part of the breakup? I think it's highly likely that telephone service in Alaska and Hawaii also is provided by companies that did not have the "standard" relationship to Ma of the usual Bell's. That covers three of the five states that ban COCOTs. I don't know about the other two (Arkansas and Oklahoma) but I'm pretty sure that SNET was not the only semi-independent local provider that was immune to the breakup. (BTW, the SNET/NY Tel boundary is strange: It runs through Greenwich, Con- necticut and then up and "over" Pound Ridge and Lewisboro, New York. It's interesting that all of these areas - NY Tel or not, New York or Connecticut - are in the 203 area code; in fact, Pound Ridge is in Stamford's local calling area and vice versa, while Lewisboro shares a local calling area with Darien, Connecticut. New Canaan is uniquely privileged: It also shares a local area with Pound Ridge, which it does not abut, while Lewisboro doesn't share local calling areas with either Pound Ridge or Stamford, although it abuts both! From what I hear from friends in Greenwich, those who fall in the areas of Greenwich served by NY Tel complain about it continuously - the service is poor and based on obsolete equipment. Since NY Tel serves a grand total of three exchanges in Connecticut, I'm sure they aren't very worried about what the Connecticut regulators have to say - and the NY regulators don't much care what the non-NY-voting Connecticut ratepayers have to say. One of these days, I'll have to find out if there are any COCOTs in the NY Tel areas of Greenwich. Since it's mainly residential, NOT finding any would not necessarily say very much.) Jerry