S.D-REUBEN%KLA.WESLYN@WESLEYAN.BITNET (Doug Reuben) (05/04/87)
Message-ID: <12299601869.15.S.D-REUBEN@KLA.WESLYN>
In my last post about Pac*Bell and AT&T calling cards, I mentioned that
the splitting up of calling card services is one reason why I feel that the
requirements of the Modified Divestiture Agreement were ridiculous, and why
I would like to see the Bell System put back together (Again, I know I'm
dreaming).
I can't recall who (terribly sorry), but someone mentioned that the
divestiture worked for them because long distance rates had come down, and that
now it was time for local operations to be subject to "competition" as well.
Although the divestiture has allowed long distance rates to drop
precipitously, which is a bonus of the breakup, everything else is not.
I see little or no difference between the rates of the alternate long
distance carriers and those of AT&T. Moreover, the quality of the alternates is
simply horrendous, and with the implementation more and more fiber optic routes
on AT&T (especially new ones like:
New York- San Mateo County (415) and most of 418, Connecticut to San Francisco
County (415), New York/CT to Texas (214), New York/CT to Atlanta (404),
and NY/CT to South Carolina, Virginia, Chicago, Detroit as well as the "older
links, like NY/CT - Mass), I am VERY willing to pay the penny per minute more
on some calls so that I can use AT&T's fiber optics (believe me, once you talk
via fiber you won't want to go back to anything else!)
The point here is not to compare various types of LD trunks, but to say
that competition really hasn't brought the great degree of choices that it
was supposed to. The alternate LD co's have a few fiber optic trunks, and do a
few things well, but they are more or less the same (although some are
definitely on the LOW end!), and aren't much of a real choice. In other words,
their rates are marginally lower than AT&T's, but not to a significant extent,
and the quality of service they provide (even US Sprint, which doesn't seem to
use as much fiber as they promise in their TV ads) is at times drastically
lower than AT&T's, so much so that for the "average consumer", there is really
not much of a choice being offered.
Previously, if you wanted cheap long distance you would use someone like
MCI, who didn't have such great connections, but who was significantly cheaper
than AT&T (as AT&T was regulated then).
Now, MCI is just like Sprint who is just like Allnet (etc....), all of which
are slightly below AT&T in price and very far below in transmission quality
and optional services. Thus, before you had a choice, and you gave up quality
but saved a lot of money. Now, you can give op quality, but fail to realize any
significant savings. So what good did all this do?
Moreover, the divestiture is generally more expensive for the consumer.
If you don't make a lot of long distance calls, you are probably paying more
for service now then you did when it was still the Bell System. Sure, now you
call call coast-to-coast for $7 per hour, but if you don't make many long
distance calls, you are paying more in terms of "access fees" for a service
you are not really using. Obviously, this reflects a more accurate appraisal
of what the the costs for local vs. long distance service are. Yet the costs
of this more "accurate appraisal" make it difficult to see if such a method for
measuring phone service is worth it.
Moreover, why break up the Bell System if all that was required was a
more sensitive pricing system? And if this means that I have to dial 0 for
a local operator and 00 for a LD operator, or if it means that to fix a trunk
my local co. has to argue with AT&T about it for 4 weeks, or if it means that
my local Crossbar is now takes 5 seconds to complete a call after I finish
dialing (Touch Tone) when it used to go through right away, and if it means
that I have deal with two companies (my BOC and AT&T) who don't like each other
anymore, and if it means that my local BOC has to spend money to DUPLICATE
Calling Card and operator equipment that is already in place under AT&T (which
I will ultimately pay for)...and....(whew!), then when it comes right down to
it, was divestiture worth it?
As far as I can see, the cost of divestiture is far greater, both in
economic terms and, more importantly to me as a customer, in terms of SERVICE
(remember that word?? :-;), than whatever small gains it has achieved. It is
for that reason that I said I would
like to have to Bell System put back together again....
-(thanks to those who struggled through this long post....!)
-Doug
Reuben@Weslyn.Bitnet
REUBEN%WESLYN.BITNET@WISCVM.ARPA
...seismo!weslyn.bitnet!reuben (UUCP)
-------