Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!netsys!vector!telecom-gateway From: lars@salt.acc.com (Lars J Poulsen) Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom Subject: Re: Divestiture, Business and the General Public Message-ID: Date: 15 Jun 89 21:29:02 GMT Sender: news@vector.Dallas.TX.US Organization: Advanced Computer Communications, Santa Barbara, California Lines: 57 Approved: telecom-request@vector.dallas.tx.us X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@vector.dallas.tx.us X-TELECOM-Digest: volume 9, issue 200, message 5 of 7 There is a general perception that the net effect of the ATT breakup has been to shift rates from long distance service to local service, and that only large businesses have gained overall reductions is the cost of thier phone service. I believe that the restructuring of rates has been a good thing. The long distance telephone business today is competitive and in almost every way superior to the conditions of 5 years ago. At the same time, the technolgy of the network has been brought up to date; the last few crossbar exchanges are being replaced by new all-digital exchanges as we discuss this. On the other hand, the Reagan era deregulation has created a bad situation in the local service area, not unlike the cable TV business: A monopoly provider has been allowed to raise rates and restructure rates with inadequate supervision. At the outset, pessimists claimed that without the motherly guidance of AT&T, the nation's telephone network would fall apart as ultra-short-term profit hunting discouraged capital investment. This has not happened at all. The breakup has largely achieved the goals that drove it. The ripple effects of changes has been such that it would have been impossible to predict the consequences of minor changes to the plan at the outset. Brought up in "socialist" Europe, I believe that all regulation of the business market should favor "the little guy", i.e. residential customers as well as family businesses. The IBMs of this world can look after them selves quite well. I would like to see more regulation of the local telephone service, to include the following: (1) More readable phone bills. All mandatory charges, taxes etc included in the basic monthly price of service, and all optional components identified on separate line items. (2) Elimination of the "federally mandated LD access charges". Since this charge goes straight to the local service provider as part of the general revenue stream, there is no need to list it separately, nor to mandate a particular amount. This is sheer obfuscation. (3) Equitable charges for all customers. Includes elimination of CENTREX service. If your subscription includes 20 instruments, each with its own wire pair into a switch at CO premises, this is really 20 lines. The pricing of Centrex service to pretend that this is a virtual PBX is sheer obfuscation. (4) Least call call routing. If you do not specifically request a specific long distance carrier, the local operating company should route the call on the carrier with the lowest list price for the given origin and destination. With stored program control exchanges, this would be fairly simple to implement, and would spawn a new level of competition between the long distance companies. -- Lars Poulsen (800) 222-7308 or (805) 963-9431 ext 358 ACC Customer Service Affiliation stated for identification only My employer probably would not agree if he knew what I said !!