eli@pws.bull.com (Steve Elias) (09/10/90)
After reading Yet More Comments Against Divestiture from our Moderator and a Canadian telecom monopoly supporter, I'll take this opportunity to express support for divestiture and equal access to long distance carriers. I hope that divestiture continues and that ATT continues to be stripped of ALL monopolistic advantages which it still enjoys. Patrick, your continued ranting against divestiture and freedom of competition in the telecom industry is getting OLD. I doubt I'm the only reader who feels this way. Peace! eli [Moderator's Note: The problems associated with divestiture which were needless and in any event should have been solved at least three years ago are getting OLD also ... and I *know* I'm not the only person who feels this way! PAT]
eli@pws.bull.com (Steve Elias) (09/13/90)
lfd@lcuxlq.att.com (Leland F Derbenwick) writes: > Would you mind posting a description of those "monopolistic advantages" > that AT&T "still enjoys"? The large inventory of switching equipment that ATT has and their practice of giving it away in order to win contracts. Isn't some of this inventory leftover from the monopoly days? ATT's enormous cash and capital reserve is a leftover from the monopoly days and allows them to outspend their competition when it comes to advertising and shmoozing cusomters, as well as allowing them to give away equipment in order to win bids. Note that the FCC and Judgefolk decided that these things are not in violation of divestiture. My opinion obviously doesn't carry much weight on this legal issue! (Not the first time!) > I'm aware that about 10% of the phone lines in the country aren't > equal access yet, but that's because the local companies don't have > (and can't afford) equipment to support it there. No, but I don't consider that much of an unfair or monopolistic advantage, although it does help ATT. You can't change every backwoods CO overnight. > Other than that, the only "advantage" I know of is that we are under > stricter regulation than our competitors. Hardly an advantage! ATT is so much larger than any of its competition that it should be under much stricter regulation, in my opinion. Isn't ATT 10 or 40 times the size of US Sprint? How much bigger than MCI? ATT could put MCI & Sprint out of business in a few months if it weren't for some of these regulations. Aside: Have you noticed that just about all of ATTs advertising is directed against US Sprint rather than MCI? Why? Isn't MCI bigger? > The local phone companies are still monopolies; is that what you > were thinking of? Nah. My gripe with the local telcos is their obnoxious instate long distance rates. luckily, these can usually be avoided by strategic use of long distance carriers for in state long distance calls. in particular, a home 800 number from Sprint does nicely in avoiding these charges. From 9-12 weekdays, it's cheaper to call a Massachusetts phone long distance from California than it is to call long distance from within Massachusetts! and it's often cheaper to call via the Sprint 800 number than to pay instate toll charges from a pay phone or from a friend's home phone. NYNEX advertises their "instate 800 number" as a great bargain at 18 cents a minute. this is pretty silly, since long distance 800 rates off peak are closer to 10 cents a minute! eli
bill@toto.info.com (Bill Cerny) (09/14/90)
>[Moderator's Note: The problems associated with divestiture which were >needless and in any event should have been solved at least three years >ago are getting OLD also ... and I *know* I'm not the only person who >feels this way! PAT] Do I perceive that familiar spiritual melody "Let My RBOCs Go"? I would like to see my RBOC provide video services that the local cable franchise has proven themselves incapable of delivering. But, on the other hand, I must confess good old American parochialism in that I don't want RBOCs to provide information services "content" (and you thought only congresscritters looked after their constituent interests? ;-) Bill Cerny bill@toto.info.com | attmail: !denwa!bill
john@bovine.ati.com (John Higdon) (09/15/90)
Steve Elias <eli@pws.bull.com> writes: > Aside: Have you noticed that just about all of ATTs advertising is > directed against US Sprint rather than MCI? Why? Isn't MCI bigger? Yes, but as a matter of fact most of the advertising seems to be quite generic. It refers to "them". The only direct competitor attack that I have noticed seems to be against MCI in the use of the counters at the bottom of the screen showing the "big savings". This is a direct takeoff on the old MCI commercials. Which ads go after Sprint specifically? John Higdon | P. O. Box 7648 | +1 408 723 1395 john@bovine.ati.com | San Jose, CA 95150 | M o o !
lfd@lcuxlq.att.com (Leland F Derbenwick) (09/17/90)
In article <12125@accuvax.nwu.edu>, eli@pws.bull.com (Steve Elias) writes: (In reply to and quoting some email I sent him. Since he's made it public, I feel I should reply in public. These are my own personal comments, as I am in no position to speak for AT&T on this -- I'm not even involved with the long-distance side of the business.) > lfd@lcuxlq.att.com (Leland F Derbenwick) writes: > > Would you mind posting a description of those "monopolistic advantages" > > that AT&T "still enjoys"? > The large inventory of switching equipment that ATT has and their > practice of giving it away in order to win contracts. Isn't some of > this inventory leftover from the monopoly days? I most sincerely hope not. It costs big bucks to store and pay the interest on investments in non-productive inventory. And end-user equipment from the days when the IBM XT was a _really good_ PC is hardly going to be worth much these days, anyhow. > ATT's enormous cash and capital reserve is a leftover from the > monopoly days and allows them to outspend their competition when it > comes to advertising and shmoozing cusomters, as well as allowing them > to give away equipment in order to win bids. Note that the FCC and > Judgefolk decided that these things are not in violation of > divestiture. My opinion obviously doesn't carry much weight on this > legal issue! (Not the first time!) Our capital reserve is essentially all invested in our network, our factories, and our offices, and I don't know of any huge cash reserve. (If we had one, I doubt if we'd have cut our workforce from about 400,000 employees at divestiture to somewhere around 270,000 today.) And I may just not have kept up with the news, but I haven't heard about any great giveaways. Sorry. How about a fact or two, rather than unsubstantiated accusations about huge hoards left over from more than six years ago? Speaking strictly for myself, Lee Derbenwick, AT&T Bell Laboratories, Warren, NJ lfd@cbnewsm.ATT.COM or <wherever>!att!cbnewsm!lfd
bakerj@ncar.ucar.edu (Jon Baker) (09/19/90)
In article <12125@accuvax.nwu.edu>, eli@pws.bull.com (Steve Elias) writes: > My gripe with the local telcos is their obnoxious instate long > distance rates. Perhaps a technical nitpick, but it's 'intra-lata', not 'intra-state'. In smaller eastern states, it may be the case that lata=state, but this is not the case in the west. e.g. a Phoenix-Tucson call is not handled by USWest. > luckily, these can usually be avoided by strategic use of long > distance carriers for in state long distance calls. I've found that only AT&T is diligent about blocking intra-lata calls. Using LD carriers for intra-lata (although they're not supposed to do this) is good method of obtaining better quality transmission or better rates (depending on the carrier, quality of trunks from US West to the carrier, etc.). JB
corwin@apple.com (Paul Frommeyer) (09/20/90)
[various complaints about divestiture from our Moderator]
[various praises of divestiture and complaints about our Moderator]
My .02, for what it's worth:
I'm afraid my views on divestiture parallel those of our esteemed
Moderator. I think the divestiture thing looked good on paper, but
has proven to be less than great in practice.
The whole intent of divestiture, as I remember it from Judge Greene,
was to break up the AT&T monopoly. This may have succeeded in part
with the long distance carriers; it certainly went nowhere with the
local telco, which at least for me is the area that affects my phone
service the most.
I want to have a choice of subscriber loop carriers; If I don't like
Pac Bell, I want to be able to get dial tone from Bob's Fone Company
if I so choose. Until that free market choice exists, the One Big
Monopoly of AT&T has simply been replaced with Several Small
Monopolies.
If phone service is in fact a "public utility", then why break up AT&T
in the first place? If it is not, and should simply be yet another
service provided in a free market economy, then why do the RBOC's
still have a monopoly on phone service?
A lot of good has come of divestiture, but I think even more good
would arise if our friends in Congress and the FCC would dispense with
what I see as half-measures aimed at perpetuating the monopoly of the
local telco. The place divestiture would benefit subscribers most is
at the level of the local telco, not only through market-driven
pricing, but also through market-driven services, such as data and
video, to name two.
Anticipating complaints about an "unfair advantage" had by the RBOCs
in the event of their deregulation, I raise a point made in a previous
posting in the Digest, namely that there is ready-made competition for
the telcos in the form of the local cable television company.
Of course, that would require that the CATV carriers not be
monopolies...!
OK, now you can all flame away! :-)
Paul "Corwin" Frommeyer Network Sorcerer and Telecomm Hacker
Apple Computer Incorporated Internet: corwin@apple.com
Disclaimer: "My opinion, not Apple's","No comment"JAJZ801@calstate.bitnet (09/21/90)
> The whole intent of divestiture, as I remember it from Judge Greene, > was to break up the AT&T monopoly. This may have succeeded in part > with the long distance carriers; it certainly went nowhere with the > local telco, which at least for me is the area that affects my phone > service the most. The divestiture was forced by AT&T's abuse of its monopoly power and position, namely cross-subsidization that was expressly to avoid and ruin competition. Existing monopolies are not expressily forbidden, though they may be regulated, the formation of new ones may be blocked. > I want to have a choice of subscriber loop carriers; If I don't like > Pac Bell, I want to be able to get dial tone from Bob's Fone Company > if I so choose. Until that free market choice exists, the One Big > Monopoly of AT&T has simply been replaced with Several Small > Monopolies. If local telco's engage in the same practices as they divesify, they may be subject to the same accusations and actions. > If phone service is in fact a "public utility", then why break up AT&T > in the first place? If it is not, and should simply be yet another > service provided in a free market economy, then why do the RBOC's > still have a monopoly on phone service? Not being a lawyer or sematicist, I'm not sure what you mean by a "public utility", but it's not a publicly owned utility, in the sense that some cities or counties have municipaly owned power, gas, etc. As a private corporation, it has a fudiciary duty to serve the interests of it's stockholders, not the public at large. It has some moral and civic duty for the latter, but it's the responsibility of the regulators to define and decide what those are, not the company. > A lot of good has come of divestiture, but I think even more good > would arise if our friends in Congress and the FCC would dispense with > what I see as half-measures aimed at perpetuating the monopoly of the > local telco. The place divestiture would benefit subscribers most is > at the level of the local telco, not only through market-driven > pricing, but also through market-driven services, such as data and > video, to name two. It's not within the traditions or constitution to 'nationalize' (or staticize, or whatever the equivalent would be) private companies. They can be restricted in operation and penalized for violations, but that is not the same thing as just breaking them up. The violations must be pervasive and intentional before that remedy is permitted. > Anticipating complaints about an "unfair advantage" had by the RBOCs > in the event of their deregulation, I raise a point made in a previous > posting in the Digest, namely that there is ready-made competition for > the telcos in the form of the local cable television company. > Of course, that would require that the CATV carriers not be > monopolies...! With regard to this and Bob's Fone Company, if the means of distribution, namely the wires, cables, etc. were municipaly installed and owned, like water, sewers (and some gas and electric), then your competition for dial tone would be practical. Unfortunately, until some community somewhere takes such an approach or it becomes a state law, don't hold your breath. Then, of course, since history repeats itself, we can look forward to "slamming" (e.g. MCI thread) by local tone providers :-) Jeff Sicherman jajz801@calstate.bitnet
Donald E. Kimberlin <0004133373@mcimail.com> (09/24/90)
John writes <in Digest V10, Iss 648: >The only direct competitor attack that {referring here to AT&T} >I have noticed seems to be against MCI in the use of the counters at >the bottom of the screen showing the "big savings". This is a direct >takeoff on the old MCI commercials. >Which ads go after Sprint specifically? It probably is a regional thing, John. The nets and local buys allow smart advertisers <and AT&T is certainly a smart advertiser> to vary campaigns by areas. Here, we get a mixture of the slams on MCI with counters, but also an equal proportion of panning the "Sprint Pin-Drop."
paul@hpsciz.sc.hp.com (Paul Mooney) (09/24/90)
> It's not within the traditions or constitution to 'nationalize' (or > staticize, or whatever the equivalent would be) private companies. Last constitution of U.S.A. I read said that nationalization with compensation was allowed. Just thought I'd mention it. Paul Mooney [Moderator's Note: Unfortunatly, you are correct. Something very scary here in Chicago right now are the local politicians talking about stealing (only they prefer to call it 'municipalizing') the property of Commonwealth Edison, and taking over the electrical power system here as an agency of city government. I guess they need another patronage hive. Imagine! The people who brought us the Chicago schools, the Chicago Housing Authority and the Chicago Transit Authority -- now they want to take over the nuke plants. It is really bad news. PAT]
len@uunet.uu.net (Len Rose) (09/25/90)
This isn't specifically telecom related,but it does relate to divestiture et al. I am extremely happy about one aspect of divestiture. Because of it, Unix System V was more easily obtained and AT&T 3B2 systems were made available to customers outside of AT&T. Perhaps we would all be using BSD if it never happened ... And maybe some aspects of my life would be different too :-) Len [Moderator's Note: The current issue of Computer Underground Digest has an article about Len Rose, and his difficulty in finding gainful employment due to his current legal difficulties. If you can help him out with this, contact him at the address shown above. For more information on his case, read the issue of CUD distributed Monday. For a subscription to CUD, write the Moderators: tk0jut2@niu.bitnet. PAT]