ktl@wag240.caltech.edu (Kian-Tat Lim) (12/06/89)
Pacific Telesis ran a full-page ad in today's Los Angeles Times. Here's the text (there is no copyright on the ad): [Big headline] Can you imagine living in a country that limits the flow of information to its students? [Big headline] You do. [Bold italic] If Naason Sanchez lived in Great Britain, his telephone line could connect him to a computerized information service that would help him learn to solve math problems and answer geography questions in an instant. But Naason lives in Los Angeles, California -- in the United States of America -- and he isn't that lucky. Here in America, the Bell telephone companies aren't allowed to work closely with educators to create and offer information services like these that can help students learn. Or for that matter, provide many other services that could improve the lives of American citizens in ways people in other countries take for granted. Nor are the Bell companies allowed to design and produce equipment which could make these services easier to use. [Headline] Why is the U.S. behind? In 1984, an agreement between AT&T and the U.S. Justice Department split up the nationwide Bell system, forming Pacific Telesis and six other regional holding companies. At that time, very narrow limits were imposed on the services that their phone company subsidiaries, like Pacific Bell, could offer. Today, students in many other countries can use their phone systems to reach special computerized tutoring services, or they can access data bases that can help them do the research necessary to complete their homework assignments. Meanwhile, here in America, it's a different story. These services are available, but only in limited locations, and at high cost. If the Bell companies could develop and provide these services, along with many others that people in other countries take for granted, they would become more widely available, and growth of this market would encourage more information providers to enter it. [Headline] There _is_ something you can do. Legislation that would lift restrictions on Pacific Bell has already been introduced in the U.S. Congress. But it's not too late for you to learn more about this issue, and help us do something about it. The education of Naason Sanchez and millions of other American kids is too important to put on hold. [Boxed] STOP PUTTING AMERICA ON HOLD [Logo of telephone handset with a pair of hands] For further information, call Pacific Telesis Group. 1-800-776-1636. [My comments: 1. I sincerely doubt that Pacific Telesis expects to make much money off of education-only information services. I would expect them to quickly take a back seat to more lucrative commercial services. 2. How many countries have telco-owned information services? Britain, France, and who else? 3. Lifting restrictions may be a bit more general than the ad implies. I plan to call to get the further information. 4. [Not telecom related] Is answering geography questions instantly, by reference to a computer database, really a good way to improve our educational system? Kian-Tat Lim (ktl@wagvax.caltech.edu, KTL @ CITCHEM.BITNET, GEnie: K.LIM1)
john@bovine.ati.com (John Higdon) (12/10/89)
Kian-Tat Lim <ktl@wag240.caltech.edu> writes: > Pacific Telesis ran a full-page ad in today's Los Angeles > Times. Here's the text (there is no copyright on the ad): > [...] > In 1984, an agreement between AT&T and the U.S. Justice > Department split up the nationwide Bell system, forming Pacific > Telesis and six other regional holding companies. At that time, very > narrow limits were imposed on the services that their phone company > subsidiaries, like Pacific Bell, could offer. And for good reason. This was the topic of a meeting at the State building in San Francisco a couple of months ago between PacTelesis, information providers, and a rep from the PUC. A lot was discussed, but the long and the short of it is that since Pac*Bell controls the network, they could and probably would use every trick in the book to unfairly compete with independent providers. Once they gained a monopoly (in a completely unregulated market), they would only concentrate on lucrative aspects of the service. Since the PUC is not really sympathetic to Pac*Bell on this issue, it appears that they have taken to the streets. To see how information services provided by Pac*Bell would evolve, just look at the nation's cable TV industry. Cable companies scrambled to get exclusive franchises in cities across the US, promising to offer, not only TV stations from all over, but interactive services, educational services, and cultural programming. What did we really get? With minor exceptions, there is no interactive capability, they dropped the "out of area" TV stations and substituted all manor of over-priced pop-market pay channels. There are shopping channels, pay-per-view channels, and the rates have gone through the roof, even though technology and economies of scale would contraindicate the present high cost to the consumer. > If the Bell companies could develop and provide these services, > along with many others that people in other countries take for > granted, they would become more widely available, and growth of this > market would encourage more information providers to enter it. This is blatant nonsense. If the market is so promising, why aren't entreprenuers falling all over themselves to enter it now, as they are perfectly able to do? Is the reasoning that just because a "Bell company" enters a market that a stamp of approval has been issued? > 1. I sincerely doubt that Pacific Telesis expects to make much > money off of education-only information services. I would expect them > to quickly take a back seat to more lucrative commercial services. Absolutely correct. See my comments above about cable TV to see how there motives line up with reality. > 3. Lifting restrictions may be a bit more general than the ad > implies. I plan to call to get the further information. There is only one thing to remember: PacTelesis' dream is to become an "unregulated monopoly". John Higdon | P. O. Box 7648 | +1 408 723 1395 john@bovine.ati.com | San Jose, CA 95150 | M o o !
langz@asylum.sf.ca.us (Lang Zerner) (12/14/89)
In article <1863@accuvax.nwu.edu> ktl@wag240.caltech.edu (Kian-Tat Lim) writes: >X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 9, Issue 555, message 2 of 5 > Pacific Telesis ran a full-page ad in today's Los Angeles >Times. Here's the text (there is no copyright on the ad): For the future reference of all posters, the United States has joined the Berne International Copyright Convention, which means that the text is copyright by default, even if not explicitly stated. I doubt PacTel would be too upset about this message getting spread 'round, but forewarned is forearmed. Be seeing you... Lang Zerner langz@asylum.sf.ca.us UUCP:bionet!asylum!langz ARPA:langz@athena.mit.edu "...and every morning we had to go and LICK the road clean with our TONGUES!" [Moderator's Note: The only one I have trouble with here is Dow Jones and Company / The Wall Street Journal. Those people have screamed a couple times about stuff 'reprinted without permission' on the net in one news group or another. Other papers seem to like us discussing their articles. But Mr. Zerner's point is a good one worth remembering. PT]
goldstein@delni.enet.dec.com (12/15/89)
In article <1863@accuvax.nwu.edu>, ktl@wag240.caltech.edu (Kian-Tat Lim) writes... > Pacific Telesis ran a full-page ad in today's Los Angeles >Times. Here's the text (there is no copyright on the ad): >[Big headline] Can you imagine living in a country that limits the > flow of information to its students? >[Big headline] You do.... >[Headline] Why is the U.S. behind? > In 1984, an agreement between AT&T and the U.S. Justice >Department split up the nationwide Bell system, forming Pacific >Telesis and six other regional holding companies. At that time, very >narrow limits were imposed on the services that their phone company >subsidiaries, like Pacific Bell, could offer. Cute. PacTel is simply doing the usual pressure-job on the courts. Under the judicially-imposed regulations (i.e., the consent decree's a settlement to an antitrust suit, and implies previous guilt), "Bell" companies are allowed to have monopolies on local telephone service, but are not allowed to manufacture or own information providers. They have to buy their goods from the free market (what's that, they wonder?). Indeed Naason Sanches is allowed to have information services, available by phone. 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. If they really guaranteed fairness, they'd probably be given more leeway. (The FCC has relaxed its rules, but the court is now the limiting factor.) It takes time for a monopoly to learn to compete fairly. fred Disclaimer: I speak for me. Opinions are mine alone; sharing requires permission.