Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!rutgers!bellcore!texbell!vector!telecom-gateway From: ms6b+@andrew.cmu.edu (Marvin Sirbu) Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom Subject: Re: Divestiture, Business and the General Public Message-ID: Date: 16 Jun 89 20:54:23 GMT Sender: news@vector.Dallas.TX.US Lines: 54 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 202, message 1 of 9 Lars Pulson writes: > (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. Don't expect this to change unless we rewrite the Constitution to eliminate States. As long as we have a Federal system, interstate rates will be under Federal control, and local rates under State control. The subscriber line charge (SLC) is an element of interstate phone rates. > (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. Equity requires that 20 ordinary phone lines should not cost simply 20 times the cost of one phone line, since there are economies of scale. After all, I could use a digital loop carrier to run 20 lines to one location. I also only have to send one bill. These savings should translate into lower rates for 20 lines to one location--Centrex--than 20 individual lines to different locations. > (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. Centrex users can in fact buy such a service from the local telephone company, but it is costly. The reasons it costs so much is an element of the divestiture which could be changed without changing the Constitution. Bascially, the MFJ forbids a BOC from having anything to do with "selecting" which long distance company carries your traffic. This strict language was put in in reaction to the pre-divestiture behavior of the BOCs which favored AT&T. The way Centrex customers get around the rule is that the BOC establishes a capability for routing calls, but the Centrex customer is responsible for downloading to the CO the routing tables to be used (i.e. which area-code/exchange numbers should be routed via which carrier). Thus, it is argued, it is the customer, not the BOC who is "selecting" the carrier. Unless you can afford to update and manage these routing tables, you can't afford the least cost routing service, and the BOCs are currently prohibited from doing it for you. Marvin Sirbu Carnegie Mellon University internet: ms6b+@andrew.cmu.edu bitnet: ms6b+%andrew@CMCCVB