Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!rutgers!bellcore!texbell!vector!telecom-gateway From: TIHOR@acf1.nyu.edu Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom Subject: Re: Divestiture, Business and the General Public Message-ID: Date: 16 Jun 89 18:49:00 GMT Sender: news@vector.Dallas.TX.US Lines: 16 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 3 of 9 Some form of major change was inevitable. I remember that at the time that AT&T decided to go with the flow there was a serious question about how much long distance ratres would rise and to what extent universal service would continue to exist since the major customers of LS serve were bypassing at an alarming rate. Thus either we had to move towards the current situation or towards the European model of strinctly forbidding any transmission of information which bypasses the official carrier. In the US this would probably have ended up as a Data Tax on communications capacity. I agree that the local companies should have been treated more firmly and required to improve the system working towards the best available technology. As it is now local service at best prices normal business service to cover costs, residential at the highest price politically permitted and lifeline "subsidized services" at the marginal cost.