Path: utzoo!attcan!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!apple!bionet!hayes.fai.alaska.edu!accuvax.nwu.edu!nucsrl!telecom-request
From: eli@pws.bull.com (Steve Elias)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Re: Divestiture -- Keep on Truckin
Message-ID: <12125@accuvax.nwu.edu>
Date: 13 Sep 90 07:05:16 GMT
Sender: news@accuvax.nwu.edu
Reply-To: eli@pws.bull.com
Organization: TELECOM Digest
Lines: 58
Approved: Telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 10, Issue 643, Message 6 of 8


lfd@lcuxlq.att.com (Leland F Derbenwick) writes:

> Would you mind posting a description of those "monopolistic advantages"
> that AT&T "still enjoys"?

The large inventory of switching equipment that ATT has and their
practice of giving it away in order to win contracts.  Isn't some of
this inventory leftover from the monopoly days?

ATT's enormous cash and capital reserve is a leftover from the
monopoly days and allows them to outspend their competition when it
comes to advertising and shmoozing cusomters, as well as allowing them
to give away equipment in order to win bids.  Note that the FCC and
Judgefolk decided that these things are not in violation of
divestiture.  My opinion obviously doesn't carry much weight on this
legal issue!  (Not the first time!)

> I'm aware that about 10% of the phone lines in the country aren't
> equal access yet, but that's because the local companies don't have
> (and can't afford) equipment to support it there.

No, but I don't consider that much of an unfair or monopolistic
advantage, although it does help ATT.  You can't change every
backwoods CO overnight.

> Other than that, the only "advantage" I know of is that we are under
> stricter regulation than our competitors.  Hardly an advantage!

ATT is so much larger than any of its competition that it should be
under much stricter regulation, in my opinion.  Isn't ATT 10 or 40
times the size of US Sprint?  How much bigger than MCI?

ATT could put MCI & Sprint out of business in a few months if it
weren't for some of these regulations.

Aside:  Have you noticed that just about all of ATTs advertising is
directed against US Sprint rather than MCI?  Why?  Isn't MCI bigger?

> The local phone companies are still monopolies; is that what you
> were thinking of?

Nah.  My gripe with the local telcos is their obnoxious instate long
distance rates.  luckily, these can usually be avoided by strategic
use of long distance carriers for in state long distance calls.  in
particular, a home 800 number from Sprint does nicely in avoiding
these charges.  From 9-12 weekdays, it's cheaper to call a
Massachusetts phone long distance from California than it is to call
long distance from within Massachusetts!  and it's often cheaper to
call via the Sprint 800 number than to pay instate toll charges from a
pay phone or from a friend's home phone.

NYNEX advertises their "instate 800 number" as a great bargain at 18
cents a minute.  this is pretty silly, since long distance 800 rates
off peak are closer to 10 cents a minute!


eli