McConnaughey@cup.portal.com (07/24/89)
Dear John,
Regarding your assertion that OCCs selectively serve metropolitan areas, I can
provide some information to clarify some of your misconceptions about US
Sprint on this topic.
1) US Sprint has points of presence in every LATA in the CONUS (and also
Hawaii) connected to Sprint's fiber optic transmission network.
2) US Sprint has points of presence (POPs) and provides service in most of
the major independent Telco operating territories (GTE, United,...)
3) Except for GTE, independent Telcos are not required to offer their
subscribers "equal access". (GTE signed an agreement with the DOJ to provide
what was essentially equal access in their territories when they purchased
Southern Pacific Communications Corp., Sprint's precursor , from the S.P.
railroad.)
4) In particular, in California Sprint has at least one POP in every PacBell
LATA and provides FGD service wherever PacBell has offered equal access.
5) I called PacBell information (411) and NPA 555-1212 to get area codes and
exchange prefixes for the rural areas you mentioned. I then called US Sprint
Customer service at (1)800-877-4646 and inquired about Sprint service in Weed,
Baker, and Los Banos. The results are as follows:
Location NPA NXX Equal Access Date Sprint FGD offered
________ ___ ___ _________________ __________________
Weed 916 938 12/10/88 yes
Baker 619 733 not PacBell area FGD not available
Los Banos 209 826 not PacBell area FGD not available
I believe that Los Banos is in ConTel territory, although I am not certain,
and do not know which independent Telco offers service to Baker. I also
note that the date for equal access to Weed was not EOY 1987 but December of
1988.
6) US Sprint is mostly owned by United Telecommunications (80.1%). United is
the second largest independent local exchange carrier in the US and serves
mostly rural areas of the United States. Given this, I find it hard to
believe that the management of US Sprint has a policy or attitude that, as
you suggest, "...don't *really* want to bother with sleepy little
out-of-the-way communities."
7) Contrary to the tenor of your message, US Sprint built a third
transcontinental fiber optic route from the Chicago area through Minnesota,
the Dakotas, Montana, and Idaho to Seattle. This allowed Sprint to have
owned fiber connectivity to ALL LATAs in the CONUS. This route provides
service to remote areas of the US and network diversity and survivability.
It was based upon a strategic decision to provide ubiquitous coverage in the
US via fiber facilities and clearly contradicts your assertion that "what
they were really after was to have the metro areas have universal equal access
so that they could maximize their penetration in areas that required minimal
cost."
8) Lastly, it seems that you believe that AT&T has provided universal service
out of the goodness of its corporate heart. Until the recent price cap
regulation (an outgrowth of divestiture and regulatory liberalization, the
results of which seem almost painful to you) AT&T was GUARANTEED an adequate
return on its capital investment in ALL areas, rural and metropolitan. This
has never been the case with the OCCs. It took no significant financial
courage for AT&T to provide rural service in the past. It will be
interesting to see if AT&T continues to provide the same levels of support
and capital investment in rural areas in the coming years as the plant ages
and requires replacement or renovation. I don't think I'll hold my breath
either.
Regards,
Kevin McConnaughey
US Sprint Employee and Customer
(415) 375-4585
[Moderator's Note: Regards your point (8) above, in Tuesday's Digest will
be an article on AT&T and rural telephony in the 1930's. You will probably
enjoy it. PT]john@apple.com (John Higdon) (07/25/89)
In article <telecom-v09i0252m02@vector.dallas.tx.us>, McConnaughey@cup.portal. com writes: > > 5) I called PacBell information (411) and NPA 555-1212 to get area codes and > exchange prefixes for the rural areas you mentioned. I then called US Sprint > Customer service at (1)800-877-4646 and inquired about Sprint service in Weed, > Baker, and Los Banos. The results are as follows: > > > Location NPA NXX Equal Access Date Sprint FGD offered > ________ ___ ___ _________________ __________________ > Weed 916 938 12/10/88 yes > Baker 619 733 not PacBell area FGD not available > Los Banos 209 826 not PacBell area FGD not available Better check again, only use a source that knows something of which they speak. Having recently been to both Baker and Los Banos, I can tell you that if they are not Pac*Bell areas, then there is a serious problem with a COCOT company pirating their name and logo on the public phones! You may be partially correct about Baker's lack of equal access. The CO is very "honker step by step", but it is definately, absolutely, and completely Pacific Bell. Regarding Los Banos, you are completely wet. It is #5 crossbar equipped with CONTAC and very Pacific Bell and very equal access. As far as calling Sprint Customer service is concerned, how on earth did you get through? I usually give up after a 30 minute wait; you must be much more persistent. Oh, that's right. You work there. You have demonstrated one of my gripes with OCCs: they really don't seem to have an handle on the nitty-gritty of the business. If Sprint is unaware of what operating company serves Los Banos and Baker, what else do they not have a clue about? > 8) Lastly, it seems that you believe that AT&T has provided universal service > out of the goodness of its corporate heart. Until the recent price cap > regulation (an outgrowth of divestiture and regulatory liberalization, the > results of which seem almost painful to you) AT&T was GUARANTEED an adequate > return on its capital investment in ALL areas, rural and metropolitan. This > has never been the case with the OCCs. It took no significant financial Then WHY are OCC rates practically the same as AT&T's? Since they have not been mandated to serve rural areas (and most certainly do not) they should be able to undercut the socks off of AT&T. But no, there are nickel and dime discounts off of AT&T rates, rates you claim were guaranteed to provide a decent rate-of-return for serving high *and* low profit areas. In many cases OCCs have higher rates than AT&T for a decidedly inferior product. -- John Higdon | P. O. Box 7648 | +1 408 723 1395 john@zygot.uucp | San Jose, CA 95150 | M o o !