phil@amdcad.UUCP (Phil Ngai) (04/12/85)
> > It was that kind of attitude on their part > > towards companies like MCI that made the government break them > > up in the first place. > > Wrong. It was, as part of a very complex legal/social/political > situation, the classical "big is bad" syndrome complicated by > confusion between the Justice Department and the FCC on where the line > between correct behavior under regulation and incorrect behavior under > anti-trust law should be drawn. In the end, divestiture will probably > be one of the best things to happen to AT&T -- once we get a chance to > compete without having both hands tied behind our backs by the FCC! I thought the threat of bypass was a major factor also. ATT was whining about unfair competition and how MCI was skimming the cream so it was clear that long lines was no longer (in the words of some Bell System propaganda) a "natural monopoly". But the "last mile" business still is to a large extent so that was left as a monopoly. As for my personal opinion, I preferred the days when ATT could tell Southwestern Bell to jump and they'd say "how high, sir?" -- Preverted word of the day: tribadism, to rub Phil Ngai (408) 749-5720 UUCP: {ucbvax,decwrl,ihnp4,allegra}!amdcad!phil ARPA: amdcad!phil@decwrl.ARPA