Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!netsys!vector!telecom-gateway From: wmartin@st-louis-emh2.army.mil (Will Martin) Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom Subject: Re: Divestiture, Business and the General Public Message-ID: Date: 15 Jun 89 13:40:51 GMT Sender: news@vector.Dallas.TX.US Lines: 58 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 6 of 7 >[1] Do readers on the net agree with this assessment? If so, why? >If not, why? I wholeheartedly agree that the ordinary residential customer has been a total loser from this fiasco. Many of the people on this list may respond and say "not so", because they have personally benefitted. Often this is because they make many long-distance calls. I want to point out that this is NOT "ordinary" -- in fact, it is quite the exception. I define the "ordinary" customer as people with POTS, no fancy special services, probably not even touchtone, who have had plain flat-rate local service for many years, and who have seen their bills escalate far more than inflation would justify, because of asinine things like the "access charge" and the forcing of measured service in many areas. The only benefit that has come to these people has been the elimination of the telco restrictions on hooking up your own phone equipment, and this has largely been negated by the idiotic changes in the repair service situation. It could have been achieved by a simple mandate that the local telco couldn't bitch at you for hooking up extra telephones, answering machines, etc., unless you actually caused demonstrable harm to the network. Nothing else needed to change! >[2] Is this assessment generally true today, but likely to be nullified >as more time passes? Has five years simply been too short a time to >see all of the benefits? No. Things always get worse. This is a general principle of life, and is no different in this aspect than any other. Technology may improve, but other things always come along to make the end total result worse. >[3] Could we have done it better and/or differently right from the start? Certainly. We should have left the existing network as-is. Allow competing LD companies to fight with AT&T but under strict regulation. AT&T could have competed on price BY REDUCING EXPENSES, keeping the existing "Bell System" intact. For example, Southestern Bell here in St. Louis spent millions of dollars on new office buildings with fancy furnishings, plush executive offices, and lots of perks. They could have reduced expenses by having offices just like the one I work in myself, with plain grey-metal institutional furniture and minimal fanciness. No money spent on political and charitable contricutions, and no inflated executive salaries. (No reason why anyone should be paid more than the government GS schedule, in any industry anywhere.:-) >[4] Could we modify the process now in order to once again favor the >average resident? Would we want to? Yes. We can roll back things to pre-divestiture days. Sure it won't be easy. It will be simpler if we first kill all the lawyers... The whole damn thing started out with people making too many LD calls and complaining about how much they cost. The point is that it is just flat WRONG to make most LD calls that are made (and, for that matter, most local calls). WRITE LETTERS! LEAVE THE DAMN TELEPHONE ON THE HOOK! Grump! Will Martin