deej@bellcore.bellcore.com (David Lewis) (12/17/89)
In article <2161@accuvax.nwu.edu>, goldstein@delni.enet.dec.com writes: > What PacTel isn't allowed to do is sell the > information. They can sell the access to third parties who provide > the information. But Bells are common carriers, who carry information > for a price, and not information providers. The court has ruled, in > effect, that if they were to be both, they'd have too much clout to > compete with other information providers. The problem with this "neat" breakdown -- telcos are information common carriers, therefore they can't be information providers -- is that the telcos also "own" information that they could potentially "sell". (Of course, the question of who really owns information is still very thorny...) Should you restrict the telcos from selling, say, online white pages service? If you do, the service is never going to be available -- no one else has the information to offer it. Should you make the telco give the service away? It costs money to provide it -- where does this money come from? Conceptually, the information common carrier idea is a nice one. But it raises some unintended effects in its implementation... David G Lewis ...!bellcore!nvuxr!deej (@ Bellcore Navesink Research & Engineering Center) "If this is paradise, I wish I had a lawnmower."
john@bovine.ati.com (John Higdon) (12/17/89)
David Lewis <nvuxr!deej@bellcore.bellcore.com> writes: > Should you restrict the telcos from selling, > say, online white pages service? If you do, the service is never > going to be available -- no one else has the information to offer it. Information passes freely to and from telcos. For instance, they don't think twice about telling every Tom, Dick, and Harry that pretends to be you on the phone to the business office anything they would like to know about your account. Why couldn't the telcos simply sell the info to an online service, who would administer the actual product? They have no problem selling you the data one number at a time through their "online" voice directory assistance; why not just sell the whole thing to a data information provider? The rule of thumb should always be to prevent the regulated monopoly from engaging in any competitive service that utilizes its regulated network. John Higdon | P. O. Box 7648 | +1 408 723 1395 john@bovine.ati.com | San Jose, CA 95150 | M o o !
deej@bellcore.bellcore.com (David Lewis) (12/19/89)
In article <2236@accuvax.nwu.edu>, john@bovine.ati.com (John Higdon) writes: > The rule of thumb should always be to prevent the regulated monopoly > from engaging in any competitive service that utilizes its regulated > network. Not quite, according to the FCC. The rule of thumb is more like the regulated monopoly should not be able to engage in any competitive service that takes undue advantage of its monopoly power. Three Computer Inquiries have tried to find ways to enable telephone companies to utilize their regulated networks to engage in competitive services... David G Lewis ...!bellcore!nvuxr!deej (@ Bellcore Navesink Research & Engineering Center) "If this is paradise, I wish I had a lawnmower."
David Gast <gast@cs.ucla.edu> (02/12/90)
From nvuxr!deej@bellcore.bellcore.com 16 Dec 89 18:46:33 GMT >In article <2161@accuvax.nwu.edu>, goldstein@delni.enet.dec.com writes: >> What PacTel isn't allowed to do is sell the >> information. They can sell the access to third parties who provide >> the information. But Bells are common carriers, who carry information >> for a price, and not information providers. The court has ruled, in >> effect, that if they were to be both, they'd have too much clout to >> compete with other information providers. >The problem with this "neat" breakdown -- telcos are information >common carriers, therefore they can't be information providers -- is >that the telcos also "own" information that they could potentially >"sell". (Of course, the question of who really owns information is >still very thorny...) As you point out, the question of who owns the information is very thorny. It is my belief that information about the subscriber, customer, or bill payer should belong to the subscriber, customer or bill payer, not the service provider. (I would not make teleco the exception either). >Should you restrict the telcos from selling, >say, online white pages service? If you do, the service is never >going to be available -- no one else has the information to offer it. >Should you make the telco give the service away? It costs money to >provide it -- where does this money come from? Why should teleco get money for selling my name and information about me? If anyone should get the money, I should. Then people can pay the service provider if they want the service. David Gast gast@cs.ucla.edu {uunet,ucbvax,rutgers}!{ucla-cs,cs.ucla.edu}!gast